Bullshit. What bad habits are you imagining? I'm willing to bet that you're just parroting nonsense, and that you don't actually know.
Even old unstructured BASIC taught you the skills and techniques necessary to structure and organize your code when you moved on to an assembly language. Moden structured BASIC is a nearly perfect introductory language. (That is, the language stays out of your way, letting let learner focus on the task, not niggling details.)
. It's not that good language for the masses as it is advertised, and you can't do much in it.
Bullshit. It WAS the language for the masses for decades. Millions of programmers got their start with BASIC -- Either via teletype or their home micro. From the early 1970's all the way into the mid/late 1990's
Oh, and WHAT exactly can't you do with BASIC? I seriously doubt that you can answer that question, or have even put a moments thought into your ridiculous comment.
Why not Python?
Don't get me started. Python as a beginners language is a JOKE compared to BASIC. Of course, you Python zealots refuse to recognize the serious problems with your favorite toy.
It's not easy to defend non-user replaceable batteries. Especially knowing that batteries lose their ability to hold a charge over time.
This makes your statement "Devices with sealed batteries last much longer too" difficult to believe.
Of course, no matter what options or solutions you can offer, the fact remains that using a dedicated device instead of my phone means that I'm not using my phones battery for that purpose -- none will always beat out some.
On external battery packs, I've tried tons of the things from the cheap $20 models to the high-end $100 models. I've found them just slightly less than useless. I went through four of the things trying to get my wife's Android phone to last through a work-day before just giving in and buying an extra battery. She would charge one in the evening and swap them out before bed (to have two charged batteries at all times). [In the end, she switched to a Blackberry to avoid the hassle altogether. Though this isn't relevant.]
We're not likely to come to any middle ground on the above, but I would like to revisit a point you made earlier:
Applications on a phone can however reach that status, because software can become excellent in a way a dedicated device fails to reach.
This is where we really differ.
The software is only a part of what makes a device usable. Take my Kindle, for example, eink we already agree is an advantage in that dedicated device, I'll also add that the position and size of the page turn buttons is a big advantage in terms of usability that swiping a screen to turn pages. (Less effort, etc.).
In the case of the mp3 player, it's smaller size, less fragile hardware, and tactile buttons (more than just skip/back/pause/play) mean I can carry it on me in more ways than I can my phone, I'm less worried about damaging it from where it's placed, I can access almost every function without looking at the display. These are all advantages that software simply can't address where the hardware is lacking.
In the case of the GPS, I much prefer a larger screen than the one on my phone. Granted, I like the GPS software I have on my phone -- it's very nice and super easy to use -- but, again, the dedicated device simply suits my needs much better. We can revisit this when we have software-resizable hardware:)
None of these points can be addressed by software. In short, software can never make up for hardware that isn't well suited for the task.
That made no sense to me. A USB adaptor for a lighter plug is what, $5?
Think airplane. This is to say nothing of pleasure travel that may also put you out of reach of electricity for an extended period. (Though the user-replacable battery on Blackberry and some Android phones does mitigate this problem quite a bit.)
Yeah, my phone does all those things as well. Still, sometimes a special-purpose device is a better match. ("works" and "works well" are often worlds apart.)
I have GPS in the car, because it's better suited than a phone for long trips. I have an MP3 player because it's easier to use without looking at the display. (It's also nice for travel, as I'm not worried about conserving my phone battery on long trips where I may not have access to an outlet for a long time). I have a kindle because the eink display is much nicer for reading than a tablet or smartphone screen.
That is true. BBM is one of the main reasons that Blackberry is so popular with the youth. (That and the most amazing keyboard on the market -- it's a pleasure to type on, and has only improved with time. Try out the keyboard on a 9900 sometime, you'll be astonished.)
Really, Blackberry has something for everyone. From teens and rioters to wealthy business persons and celebrities, RIM has the software and hardware that most optimally meets their needs.
Odd, I bought a cheap 2GB Sandisk MP3 player for $30 and added a 4GB SD card. The interface is simple and the ergonomics are great (It's comfortable to use, and you don't even need to look at it at all to operate it.) It comes in several different colors, and mounts as a drive under Windows, Linux, Macos, and even MS-DOS with DOSUSB installed. (No need to install iTunes crapware. I can also optionally use any one of many different programs to manage my files, if you like that kind of interface.)
It was way cheaper and MUCH more versitile than buying the equivalent Apple product (Oh, wait, Apple doesn't have an equivalent product! My bad.)
"Apple premium" costs more and does less.
I'm sorry that your Philips MP3 player was a waste. Perhaps you should do a bit more investigation before you make your next purchase?
Most affluent smartphone owners prefer BlackBerry over the iPhone, and Android remains the people’s choice in the middle or upper-middle income group, according to a survey.
Re:They article should be about the Whiney Luddite
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 1
I feel your pain man but this is what's called progress.
Change doesn't automatically mean progress. Change can be bad, and often is.
The all-touch UI, for example, was bad. Touch is great for many things, and a horrible nightmare for others. Still, it seems like everyone is ditching perfectly good interfaces to force everything into touch-only. Abandoning what works well for what can be made to work if you try hard enough isn't progress.
Yeah, making apps look and act like their real-world counterparts was really popular in the mid-90's Of course, it was mostly abandoned because it was a terrible way to interact with a computer.
See, taking the metaphor to it's ultimate conclusion doesn't offer the user any advantage over the actual thing it's replacing. A date book on the computer that looks and acts just like a real datebook, for example, is actually less convenient than just having a date book! If that wasn't bad enough, adding features like recurring appointments unnecessarily complicates the UI. Had the program been designed with a UI suited for use on a computer, those advantageous features won't break the metaphor, and are consequently easier to understand and use.
I remember a parking meter app for the Blackberry Playbook that did the "real-world UI" thing that had a realistic-looking meter and ticket. It was obscenely complicated to use, because you had to work out how to do simple things like set the time on the meter, which is not at all obvious. Had the app just used standard UI elements instead of a goofy metaphor, the app would have been much easier to use and allowed for additional convenience features.
Sure, the app looks cool, and is probably fun the first time you use it. Of course, this sort of UI quickly loses it's novelty. As users struggle to enter their data quickly (read: conveniently), the failings of this approach quickly become apparent. You can probably think of several features that you'd like an app like this to have that are difficult or impossible to fit into that UI with its fundamentally low information density.
All-touch interfaces suffer from a similar problem with their over-use of one type of interaction. Touch is great for things like clicking icons or scrolling. However, it's miserable for typing or fine adjustments (like positioning the text cursor) or fine control (selecting text) Sure, it can be done, but only by making fine control coarse (zoom in on the page, slide giant tabs, etc. all extra steps). Things like a trackpad or keyboard help with these tasks immensely, but are often ignored in favor of a "simple UI" that fails at the ultimate goal of simplicity -- making it easier for users to accomplish common tasks.
I spent from 15-25 being a retail slave. I design complex horticultural systems and LED lighting to match those systems, now.
I had a neighbor who worked as a retail slave and designed and built such systems (designed to fit inside the average walk-in closet) on the side.
I'm about to be on the BBC.
Yeah, my neighbor was on TV as well for his "horticultural systems" as well. The show was called "Cops", if I remember correctly. I believe that the local news also did a feature.
Why? If you were a kid in the 80's, chances are you cut your programming teeth on whatever BASIC came with your families home micro. As a bonus, making the jump from unstructured BASIC to assembly was practically painless -- you could use the exact same techniques you developed in BASIC to structure and organize your code.
Visual Basic had it's warts, no doubt. But it was practically mindless to use. That is, it made doing common boring things quick and easy. It was perfect for many common business applications -- the only major problems you'd have is when someone used it for a project that the tool wasn't well suited.
I remember using version 6 it in the late '90's to do all sorts of things. I had one that talked to coin sorting machines to record the count and source to the main database (scan a bar code, dump the coins, repeat) It saved hours of effort and significantly reduced errors. I also had one that acted as an interface between the db and the shipping software. The warehouse would scan a bar code on the order sheet and the program would populate the fields in the shipping software with info from the DB. Again, saving hours of time and reducing errors. VB was the perfect choice for these programs and they took astonishingly little time to develop. (Less than a day for the warehouse software, for example.)
Languages like Java and C# are a huge step backward in language design. Sure, they're considered "easy", but they're in no way as easy to use as good VB. In the case of Java, it may seem really easy -- but it's very difficult to write good Java. Heh, if you thought novice VB code was a nightmare, you haven't seen novice Java code! There are an incredible number of technical details you need to understand in order to write even passable Java code. To make matters worse, doing the most obvious thing is the surest way to write terrible code! (How many Java devs here can tell me when to use a string vs a stringbuilder? If you hit google, you've made my point.)
There is a lot to be said for making languages simple and obvious to use. On that front, structured programming is unmatched. OOP is a massive failure on that front (just look at Java and C# -- I know those are the 'real OOP' -- oh, or 'I just don't understand OOP' Heh, turns out that no one seems to! Hell, even the two most commonly cited OOP essentials (encapsulation and inheritance) are at odds with one another! It's an incoherent mess! Objects are a nice language feature, and can work well when used extremely sparingly, but OOP is a bad joke that has set back the industry at least 20 years.)
So there you have it. Good old-fashioned unstructured BASIC doesn't cripple the mind any more than 6502 assembly -- you use the exact same approach to structuring and organizing your code in both. Visual Basic may not have been the best language, it had some severe limitations, but that didn't stop it from being an incredibly useful tool. If there can be any objection to it at all, it's that it made it possible for someone almost completely inexperienced to develop really bad software that worked or almost worked. Of course, this "failure" means it was successful at one of its design goals -- to be an easy-to-use development tool. (On a side note, COBOL was also designed to be easy to use, and it's arguably the most successful language on the planet; with billions of lines of mission critical code that runs the financial world.)
I've always believed that programming languages were supposed to remove complexity, not add it -- writing machine code is hard, writing in assembly is easier, C is easier still, etc. So-called 'modern' languages have done nothing but add complexity, with no obvious benefits. Certainly it's obvious that OOP has done nothing to make developing software simpler or less error prone and has instead added complexity and created an entirely new set of problems. (Heh, you haven't seen spaghetti code until you've seen any medium sized Java project! Let the defenders cry 'modul
I submitted the story, as I'm sure many others did as well. It's like there's some conspiracy trying to keep it quiet. Hell, I found out about it on a thread on crackberry.com's forums that was locked almost immediately (another thread on the subject was deleted within minutes).
It's an interesting story. Why the internet seems terrified of discussing it is beyond me.
I seriously doubt the the decision makers were unaware of Basis's BBx claim. It's much more likely that RIM thought that their industries were different enough that their use wouldn't constitute infringement.
rather than just making the Blackberry network more reliable (as in not completely centralized!)
That's too funny! RIM has better up-time than most service providers. Hell, RIM has better up-time than the electricity in your house. Of the three outages they've had in the last ten years, the longest was the most recent. Even then, most of their users were completely unaffected. Of those affected, most only experienced slow-downs. Hell, most affected users experienced problems for less than a day.
Oh, and RIM didn't lose a single message. Everything was delivered.
Contrast that with Apple, which has an abominable track-record when it comes to service up-time. You many not remember the 18-day outage their MobileMe service suffered in 2008, probably because of the continuous stream of outages that barely reliable $99/year service suffered until it got rolled into iCloud. Hell, iCloud and Siri have already suffered outages. Even Google, known for their up-time, has suffered more outages than RIM has in the last 10 years.
When it comes to reliability, RIM is unmatched. Why Apples flaky infrastructure gets a pass while RIMs rock-solid infrastructure get's pounded, I'll never know.
Now they'll have to name their minor revision of an OS that nobody cares about slightly differently!
Wow. It's like you've gone out of your way to be as uninformed as possible.
BB10 is a radical departure from the old BBOS -- hell, it's a completely different operating system!
RIM acquired QNX some time ago and have been getting it ready for the next generation of smartphones. QNX, as you probably already know, is a rock-solid RTOS. It runs nuclear reactors FFS!
Put simply, QNX (BB10) is the most advanced and capable mobile OS in the world. It is in no way "a minor revision" of their old OS.
As for "no one cares", if that's true, they should. BB10 is at least a generation ahead of Android and iOS. They've set the new standard for what a mobile OS should be.
You're confusing a mathematical explanation for reality and reality itself.
Not at all. This isn't exactly the difficult bit of QM here! I'm astonished so many lay-persons still think so damn classically (It's like they're part of some Newtonian cult! Science moved on a long time ago.)
Go read up on the double-slit experiment (where the single photon takes both paths and interferes with itself) and, of course, Bells Inequality.
The experiment took one photon, and sent it along two possible paths without recording which path it took, which causes a vibration in one (and only one) diamond.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that to a beginner all syntax is new and confusing so there is nothing superior about different ways to mark ends of blocks of code.
Spoken like someone who's never taught a programming class...
And it [BASIC] doesn't have a stack, or variable scoping, or any number of other handy things.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. It's like you went out of your way to be as uninformed as possible.
it only teaches you bad habits
Bullshit. What bad habits are you imagining? I'm willing to bet that you're just parroting nonsense, and that you don't actually know.
Even old unstructured BASIC taught you the skills and techniques necessary to structure and organize your code when you moved on to an assembly language. Moden structured BASIC is a nearly perfect introductory language. (That is, the language stays out of your way, letting let learner focus on the task, not niggling details.)
. It's not that good language for the masses as it is advertised, and you can't do much in it.
Bullshit. It WAS the language for the masses for decades. Millions of programmers got their start with BASIC -- Either via teletype or their home micro. From the early 1970's all the way into the mid/late 1990's
Oh, and WHAT exactly can't you do with BASIC? I seriously doubt that you can answer that question, or have even put a moments thought into your ridiculous comment.
Why not Python?
Don't get me started. Python as a beginners language is a JOKE compared to BASIC. Of course, you Python zealots refuse to recognize the serious problems with your favorite toy.
Pffft... "swamp gas", "weather balloon", " 39-litre hydrazine bladder tank" it's all the same story.
It's all a big conspiracy, man. Open your eyes! Stop drinking the kool-aid! The truth is out there!
It's not easy to defend non-user replaceable batteries. Especially knowing that batteries lose their ability to hold a charge over time.
This makes your statement "Devices with sealed batteries last much longer too" difficult to believe.
Of course, no matter what options or solutions you can offer, the fact remains that using a dedicated device instead of my phone means that I'm not using my phones battery for that purpose -- none will always beat out some.
On external battery packs, I've tried tons of the things from the cheap $20 models to the high-end $100 models. I've found them just slightly less than useless. I went through four of the things trying to get my wife's Android phone to last through a work-day before just giving in and buying an extra battery. She would charge one in the evening and swap them out before bed (to have two charged batteries at all times). [In the end, she switched to a Blackberry to avoid the hassle altogether. Though this isn't relevant.]
We're not likely to come to any middle ground on the above, but I would like to revisit a point you made earlier:
Applications on a phone can however reach that status, because software can become excellent in a way a dedicated device fails to reach.
This is where we really differ.
The software is only a part of what makes a device usable. Take my Kindle, for example, eink we already agree is an advantage in that dedicated device, I'll also add that the position and size of the page turn buttons is a big advantage in terms of usability that swiping a screen to turn pages. (Less effort, etc.).
In the case of the mp3 player, it's smaller size, less fragile hardware, and tactile buttons (more than just skip/back/pause/play) mean I can carry it on me in more ways than I can my phone, I'm less worried about damaging it from where it's placed, I can access almost every function without looking at the display. These are all advantages that software simply can't address where the hardware is lacking.
In the case of the GPS, I much prefer a larger screen than the one on my phone. Granted, I like the GPS software I have on my phone -- it's very nice and super easy to use -- but, again, the dedicated device simply suits my needs much better. We can revisit this when we have software-resizable hardware :)
None of these points can be addressed by software. In short, software can never make up for hardware that isn't well suited for the task.
That's my take anyhow.
That made no sense to me. A USB adaptor for a lighter plug is what, $5?
Think airplane. This is to say nothing of pleasure travel that may also put you out of reach of electricity for an extended period. (Though the user-replacable battery on Blackberry and some Android phones does mitigate this problem quite a bit.)
Or instead of hacking your device, you can just go legit...
Legit? Are you saying that jail breaking is illegitimate now?
Shame on you! Someone with a user id as low as yours should certainly know better!
The web on BB has been fantastic since OS6 -- The old Torch (9800), for example, had better support for HTML 5 than the iPhone until iOS5 Take look.
That is to say, the browsing experience is so vastly improved from the old days that it's really worth taking a second look at what RIM has to offer.
Yeah, my phone does all those things as well. Still, sometimes a special-purpose device is a better match. ("works" and "works well" are often worlds apart.)
I have GPS in the car, because it's better suited than a phone for long trips. I have an MP3 player because it's easier to use without looking at the display. (It's also nice for travel, as I'm not worried about conserving my phone battery on long trips where I may not have access to an outlet for a long time). I have a kindle because the eink display is much nicer for reading than a tablet or smartphone screen.
That is true. BBM is one of the main reasons that Blackberry is so popular with the youth. (That and the most amazing keyboard on the market -- it's a pleasure to type on, and has only improved with time. Try out the keyboard on a 9900 sometime, you'll be astonished.)
Really, Blackberry has something for everyone. From teens and rioters to wealthy business persons and celebrities, RIM has the software and hardware that most optimally meets their needs.
Odd, I bought a cheap 2GB Sandisk MP3 player for $30 and added a 4GB SD card. The interface is simple and the ergonomics are great (It's comfortable to use, and you don't even need to look at it at all to operate it.) It comes in several different colors, and mounts as a drive under Windows, Linux, Macos, and even MS-DOS with DOSUSB installed. (No need to install iTunes crapware. I can also optionally use any one of many different programs to manage my files, if you like that kind of interface.)
It was way cheaper and MUCH more versitile than buying the equivalent Apple product (Oh, wait, Apple doesn't have an equivalent product! My bad.)
"Apple premium" costs more and does less.
I'm sorry that your Philips MP3 player was a waste. Perhaps you should do a bit more investigation before you make your next purchase?
Not necessarily, since Apple customers by very demographic have more money.
Actually, that distinctions belongs to Blackberry users.
Rich Smartphone Users Opt for Blackberry over iPhone: Survey September 26, 2011:
Most affluent smartphone owners prefer BlackBerry over the iPhone, and Android remains the people’s choice in the middle or upper-middle income group, according to a survey.
. Is there a cheaper option in the United States?
+5 Funny
I feel your pain man but this is what's called progress.
Change doesn't automatically mean progress. Change can be bad, and often is.
The all-touch UI, for example, was bad. Touch is great for many things, and a horrible nightmare for others. Still, it seems like everyone is ditching perfectly good interfaces to force everything into touch-only. Abandoning what works well for what can be made to work if you try hard enough isn't progress.
Yeah, making apps look and act like their real-world counterparts was really popular in the mid-90's Of course, it was mostly abandoned because it was a terrible way to interact with a computer.
See, taking the metaphor to it's ultimate conclusion doesn't offer the user any advantage over the actual thing it's replacing. A date book on the computer that looks and acts just like a real datebook, for example, is actually less convenient than just having a date book! If that wasn't bad enough, adding features like recurring appointments unnecessarily complicates the UI. Had the program been designed with a UI suited for use on a computer, those advantageous features won't break the metaphor, and are consequently easier to understand and use.
I remember a parking meter app for the Blackberry Playbook that did the "real-world UI" thing that had a realistic-looking meter and ticket. It was obscenely complicated to use, because you had to work out how to do simple things like set the time on the meter, which is not at all obvious. Had the app just used standard UI elements instead of a goofy metaphor, the app would have been much easier to use and allowed for additional convenience features.
Sure, the app looks cool, and is probably fun the first time you use it. Of course, this sort of UI quickly loses it's novelty. As users struggle to enter their data quickly (read: conveniently), the failings of this approach quickly become apparent. You can probably think of several features that you'd like an app like this to have that are difficult or impossible to fit into that UI with its fundamentally low information density.
All-touch interfaces suffer from a similar problem with their over-use of one type of interaction. Touch is great for things like clicking icons or scrolling. However, it's miserable for typing or fine adjustments (like positioning the text cursor) or fine control (selecting text) Sure, it can be done, but only by making fine control coarse (zoom in on the page, slide giant tabs, etc. all extra steps). Things like a trackpad or keyboard help with these tasks immensely, but are often ignored in favor of a "simple UI" that fails at the ultimate goal of simplicity -- making it easier for users to accomplish common tasks.
I spent from 15-25 being a retail slave. I design complex horticultural systems and LED lighting to match those systems, now.
I had a neighbor who worked as a retail slave and designed and built such systems (designed to fit inside the average walk-in closet) on the side.
I'm about to be on the BBC.
Yeah, my neighbor was on TV as well for his "horticultural systems" as well. The show was called "Cops", if I remember correctly. I believe that the local news also did a feature.
Why? If you were a kid in the 80's, chances are you cut your programming teeth on whatever BASIC came with your families home micro. As a bonus, making the jump from unstructured BASIC to assembly was practically painless -- you could use the exact same techniques you developed in BASIC to structure and organize your code.
Visual Basic had it's warts, no doubt. But it was practically mindless to use. That is, it made doing common boring things quick and easy. It was perfect for many common business applications -- the only major problems you'd have is when someone used it for a project that the tool wasn't well suited.
I remember using version 6 it in the late '90's to do all sorts of things. I had one that talked to coin sorting machines to record the count and source to the main database (scan a bar code, dump the coins, repeat) It saved hours of effort and significantly reduced errors. I also had one that acted as an interface between the db and the shipping software. The warehouse would scan a bar code on the order sheet and the program would populate the fields in the shipping software with info from the DB. Again, saving hours of time and reducing errors. VB was the perfect choice for these programs and they took astonishingly little time to develop. (Less than a day for the warehouse software, for example.)
Languages like Java and C# are a huge step backward in language design. Sure, they're considered "easy", but they're in no way as easy to use as good VB. In the case of Java, it may seem really easy -- but it's very difficult to write good Java. Heh, if you thought novice VB code was a nightmare, you haven't seen novice Java code! There are an incredible number of technical details you need to understand in order to write even passable Java code. To make matters worse, doing the most obvious thing is the surest way to write terrible code! (How many Java devs here can tell me when to use a string vs a stringbuilder? If you hit google, you've made my point.)
There is a lot to be said for making languages simple and obvious to use. On that front, structured programming is unmatched. OOP is a massive failure on that front (just look at Java and C# -- I know those are the 'real OOP' -- oh, or 'I just don't understand OOP' Heh, turns out that no one seems to! Hell, even the two most commonly cited OOP essentials (encapsulation and inheritance) are at odds with one another! It's an incoherent mess! Objects are a nice language feature, and can work well when used extremely sparingly, but OOP is a bad joke that has set back the industry at least 20 years.)
So there you have it. Good old-fashioned unstructured BASIC doesn't cripple the mind any more than 6502 assembly -- you use the exact same approach to structuring and organizing your code in both. Visual Basic may not have been the best language, it had some severe limitations, but that didn't stop it from being an incredibly useful tool. If there can be any objection to it at all, it's that it made it possible for someone almost completely inexperienced to develop really bad software that worked or almost worked. Of course, this "failure" means it was successful at one of its design goals -- to be an easy-to-use development tool. (On a side note, COBOL was also designed to be easy to use, and it's arguably the most successful language on the planet; with billions of lines of mission critical code that runs the financial world.)
I've always believed that programming languages were supposed to remove complexity, not add it -- writing machine code is hard, writing in assembly is easier, C is easier still, etc. So-called 'modern' languages have done nothing but add complexity, with no obvious benefits. Certainly it's obvious that OOP has done nothing to make developing software simpler or less error prone and has instead added complexity and created an entirely new set of problems. (Heh, you haven't seen spaghetti code until you've seen any medium sized Java project! Let the defenders cry 'modul
I submitted the story, as I'm sure many others did as well. It's like there's some conspiracy trying to keep it quiet. Hell, I found out about it on a thread on crackberry.com's forums that was locked almost immediately (another thread on the subject was deleted within minutes).
It's an interesting story. Why the internet seems terrified of discussing it is beyond me.
I seriously doubt the the decision makers were unaware of Basis's BBx claim. It's much more likely that RIM thought that their industries were different enough that their use wouldn't constitute infringement.
rather than just making the Blackberry network more reliable (as in not completely centralized!)
That's too funny! RIM has better up-time than most service providers. Hell, RIM has better up-time than the electricity in your house. Of the three outages they've had in the last ten years, the longest was the most recent. Even then, most of their users were completely unaffected. Of those affected, most only experienced slow-downs. Hell, most affected users experienced problems for less than a day.
Oh, and RIM didn't lose a single message. Everything was delivered.
Contrast that with Apple, which has an abominable track-record when it comes to service up-time. You many not remember the 18-day outage their MobileMe service suffered in 2008, probably because of the continuous stream of outages that barely reliable $99/year service suffered until it got rolled into iCloud. Hell, iCloud and Siri have already suffered outages. Even Google, known for their up-time, has suffered more outages than RIM has in the last 10 years.
When it comes to reliability, RIM is unmatched. Why Apples flaky infrastructure gets a pass while RIMs rock-solid infrastructure get's pounded, I'll never know.
Now they'll have to name their minor revision of an OS that nobody cares about slightly differently!
Wow. It's like you've gone out of your way to be as uninformed as possible.
BB10 is a radical departure from the old BBOS -- hell, it's a completely different operating system!
RIM acquired QNX some time ago and have been getting it ready for the next generation of smartphones. QNX, as you probably already know, is a rock-solid RTOS. It runs nuclear reactors FFS!
Put simply, QNX (BB10) is the most advanced and capable mobile OS in the world. It is in no way "a minor revision" of their old OS.
As for "no one cares", if that's true, they should. BB10 is at least a generation ahead of Android and iOS. They've set the new standard for what a mobile OS should be.
so how long-lived will this 'jailbreak' be?
It's already been patched.
Ever jailbreak I've investigated has been the result of a flaw or the security model or a bug in some trusted component.
The "flaw" has already been patched in the latest OTA update.
You're confusing a mathematical explanation for reality and reality itself.
Not at all. This isn't exactly the difficult bit of QM here! I'm astonished so many lay-persons still think so damn classically (It's like they're part of some Newtonian cult! Science moved on a long time ago.)
Go read up on the double-slit experiment (where the single photon takes both paths and interferes with itself) and, of course, Bells Inequality.
The experiment took one photon, and sent it along two possible paths without recording which path it took, which causes a vibration in one (and only one) diamond.
Not even close.