One of the key factors in Elop's choice has to be the €200 million to be paid every quarter so called "platform support payments". If your device sales are falling (which Symbian devices were) you are going to grab that lifeline. This more than offset the cost of each operating system license for each Lumia device sold. The N950 and N9 were already majorly delayed, although, that was more about the software rather than the device. The Hardware was ready for market at least a year before the software was, which is why it launched with mid-tier specifications rather than the high-end device it was originally expected to be.
Whilst I dislike what happened to Nokia and in the end caused me to lose my job there, it isn't all Elop's fault. A lot of the blame has to be laid at the feet of the board of directors. They wanted a new direction and found someone who had the balls or perhaps arrogance to take Nokia there. No Finn would have taken the Microsoft option. No Finn would have likely put Symbian to bed, even though it was beyond saving. The seeds of this also fall on the the head of Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. An accountant put in charge, sure, he made Nokia incredibly profitable for a bit, but lacked vision and leadership when brave choices needed to be made.
No, that is not good enough. You do not know whether the data was sorted prior to the random numbers being applied. The flaw in their algorithm of assigning numbers could be discriminatory towards names (if it is sorted by name) that start with a certain letter.
Given that the number of people with names that start with a certain letter are pretty much on consistent bell curve, it is not hard to envision that if you have a certain name, and the list is sorted such that name is in an area of cells that the Random number gives higher numbers to, you are statistically disadvantaged relative to someone's whom's name is in a more advantageous position on that bell curve.
The lottery invites applications over the course of a month (like Feb 5th to Mar 5th). If the applications are inserted in the order they are received then there is a distinct advantage to applying early, late or in the middle. The previous method of application selection was done on a first come first served basis and this was considered to be "unfair".
The point is that you should have an equal chance of winning no matter when in that period you apply, what your name is, or any other field that you supply. The data in their list has an implied order, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to use some half-baked implementation of a lottery. Really, they should have just thrown dice.
I should point out after 3 draws of this lottery, I have failed to have my name chosen. To find out that the algorithm for selecting names is flawed is deeply disturbing and an issue I will be raising with my representative in parliament.
I think the journalists who wrote the article think that they can prove that not everyone who applies has an equal chance of winning.
I'm not 100% sure about N.America, but in Europe at least, the vast majority of cyclists you see have driving licenses and even own a car, but are just choosing not to use it. Yes, there is a subset of cyclists who flaunt traffic laws, although, I've yet to see any statistics to say what sort of percentage actually do this. (It is probably far lower than people think) On a daily basis driving (or cycling) around Toronto I see many cars passing through traffic lights at red, especially in the case of a left turn.
in London, UK, there was a study performed to work out why (as a percentage) female cyclists were involved in more accidents than male cyclists. One of the conclusions was the fact that a male cyclist was more likely to move off before the traffic signal turned green, jumping the red light. Although, I suspect that is not what you are referring too. An unnerving number of cyclists do just blow through a red light without any hesitation, which is not a smart thing to be doing.
I sympathise with your pedestrian anecdote, cyclists if they are riding on the footpath (legally or not) should always be courteous to pedestrians. Although, you should really not take offence at a cyclist ringing their bell at you. When riding my bike I am more than aware of the fact I am almost silent so ringing a bell from a sufficient distance does warn pedestrians you are approaching, it certainly should not be interpreted as an aggressive act on the part of the cyclists. Shouting and being aggressive though, if you don't appear to notice, is totally out of order. (for all the cyclists knows, you may be deaf) (And yes, whilst my bike technically is legal to ride on the side walk in Toronto, I do not do it)
Merging into a lane is a co-operative event, it is up to the road user wishing to move over to signal their intention and wait for a suitable space to move into. It matters nothing that the speeds are different, it is your responsibility as a following road user to be alert for other road users merging and adjust your speed accordingly, or move over to an adjacent lane (if one exists). Yes, if there isn't a safe space between you and the person in front and the person merging dives in (with or without signalling intent) then it is likely if an accident occurs they are at fault. This is no different no matter which type of road user is merging into traffic.
What happens a lot of the time is that people see a cyclist, bus, garbage truck, old person in a car signalling a merge and they speed up to close the gap. If there is a resultant collision it would at least partially be the fault of the road user who sped up in response to the signalling, as they have done the opposite to what is reasonable. If you are a Garbage Truck or a Bus, you pull over anyway (most of the time) as they are not intimidated, but others?
When I am riding in Toronto, I signal my intent to move to the left lane, to make a turn and I wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. You learn to judge the speed of the traffic and how far from the Intersection you need to make your lane change to do it safely and avoid annoying other road users unnecessarily. Yes, sometimes a vehicle will need to slow, but never in an abrupt fashion.
If we're going for the separate cycle lane approach, then the only way it can work safely is if cyclists heading straight on (in the cycle lane) have right of way over motorists making a turn. This is the case anyway, both with cyclists in the near side lane and pedestrians on a side walk. (Unless, in the case of the pedestrians, the cross walk is flashing before they step into road).
To solve the left turn is simple too, you show green to cyclists ahead of the regular traffic signal. They can then perform their left turn, whilst the traffic is held at red. This does mean the cyclists would have to wait for the appropriate phase in the cycle at the Intersection to make their left turn.
Cycling around cities in Denmark and Holland show that this infrastructure can be made to work (and retro-fitted to cities). Sadly, giving road space over to cyclists (at least in Toronto and I suspect a lot of other cities in the world) is politically unpalatable, even if it ultimately is the best for everyone.
Feature Phones are devices that were designed around a specific purpose or feature. Examples of the Feature Phone are: The Nokia 6800, its feature being fold out qwerty keyboard and email. The Nokia 5310, with music controls. Nokia 8800, style and quality over function. Realistically the original iPhone was a "Feature Phone" with its feature being touch-screen input.
The idea is that users buy a device based around the feature(s) they are most interested in. In the days before carrying touch-screen computers, it is a reasonable idea to target devices in this way. Compromise the general purpose of the device a little to accentuate other features. With a large touch-screen and more powerful processors such compromises aren't needed to be made as the UI is not limited to the standard 4x3 keypad with a small screen.
An $85 + Tax (at 14%) plan in Ontario will get you pretty much unlimited nation wide calling and 1GB of Data (on an LTE Network) you will also get Voice Mail and Caller Id. That costs near enough $100. Plus, if you want to have a recent phone you will have to pony up at least $100 or more up front. In the UK (where I lived until last year) you were looking at perhaps $55 (including tax at 20%) for a similar contract.
You can go cheaper in Canada, the almost cartel-like companies that control the mobile industry in Canada have lower tier "Networks" that offer cheaper contracts (the $85 plan above can be found for $60) but you have to sacrifice not being able to have access to the latest handsets. Finally there are the third tier "Networks" that have next to no coverage, outside of city centres, where you can find a similar plan for about $40, without a device and no LTE.
None of these plans are generous in their allowances. Wind (a seller of the $40 plans) claims to provide "unlimited data" but realistically that is subject to a Fair Use Agreement which means anything over 6GB you are asked to pay more, or have your bandwidth reduced)
Canada is probably one of the most expensive places to own a mobile phone
I doubt Smartphones will make serious in-roads to the African market soon. Do not forget that most of the phones used in Africa are not new devices and have had several owners. Given most modern smartphones are rather fragile items and sensitive to moisture & dust, I doubt they will have that much longevity. (Think of how indestructible feature phones were a decade ago and mostly are today) Having a non-replaceable battery would rule out a lot of current smart phone devices too.
Also, the top "features" for a phone in Africa are Torch and Radio, neither of which are top on the list of smartphone features.
You are correct, power is a big problem with smartphones. "Power" comes from people who ride a bike (or walk) into a city and purchase a car battery that is charged. Or connect to the village's car battery connected to wind/solar electricity sources. The people peddling around with car batteries is also where top-up credit is purchased from.
Nokia's moniker for this market was "Internet for the Next Billion", trying to raise the level of device in use beyond basic GSM handsets. Nokia were well aware that the relationship with this market was one that was at arm's length. Perhaps a village could pool resources to purchase a phone (Nokia sell kits for longer range external antennas, solar/car battery charging points, etc) but that was about as direct a relationship Nokia had.
One of the key factors that tipped the decision to go with Microsoft is that is was popular with the Network Operators. They, like Nokia, feared the increasing influence Google was having over the mobile phone market. Android was becoming a household name. They were excited by the idea that Nokia would bring out Windows Phone devices. I suspect the deals to supply the North American Operators would have been impossible if Nokia had gone with Android.
I am sure Nokia probably could have made Meego work, especially considering they were pushing their massive feature phone market towards a binary compatible Eco-system with Qt. The sad fact is that it was taking too long. Meego and the Linux feature phone was bogged down with the same bureaucracy that effectively killed Symbian. Also the strategy would have provided probably strong sales in China, Europe (apart from the UK & Germany), India and Africa. It would have struggled like everything before it in the North American market which Nokia coveted so strongly. I am sure the sales of WIndows Phone in the N.American market is being trumpeted as a huge success internally given that they are selling better than any previous offering there.
One myth that probably should die is that this was brought about by Elop. The decisions were almost certainly made by the board of directors and they found the CEO that could deliver on the strategy. Which is why there is a Canadian (and former Microsoft man) at the top now rather than a Finnish or even a European. It is why it couldn't be someone from within Nokia either. (until Elop's appointment the company's ethos was very much that Microsoft was the enemy, ie the attitude that lead to the creation of Symbian in the 1990s.) There is no way in the time from his appointment to the burning plaform memo could he have forced such a change in direction, he just isn't that good a leader.
Coming to the Mobile Phone game 15 years late means Apple's IP for mobile phones is exceedingly week. Other players (Motorola, Nokia, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Ericsson, etc) have a lot of IP in that area. I doubt anyone has called Apple on these patents yet. If Apple starts throwing its patents in their faces, Apple may well get more than they bargained for. It probably isn't possible to produce a phone that talks to GSM or UMTS without infringing on all the above player's IP. As with most patent disputes, the end result will be a cross licensing scheme. Meaning Apple's "innovations" will be used and improved upon by other players.
According to this article on The Register o2 are busy upgrading their network to EDGE. The Register's suggestion that this is linked to the iPhone is a compelling one.
Nokia phones currently have a system like this - you can control pretty much all functions of the "phone" via voice commands you speak. Or course, a lot of the other features of the handset can't be used this way, email, calander, etc. If you want to call someone, check your call list, your battery level, even your signal strength, you can do it all with a long key press of send (or the button on the headset). The system is not perfect, I have yet to get it to understand me saying "Three". (I believe Ericsson had this on their phones several years ago too)
The problem with an in the ear phone type product would be the fact that a bluetooth headset is very low power RF, it only goes a few metres. To communicate with a Cell, it would need to go a few miles (the higher current drain of CDMWA/UTMS would probably rule it out those networks entirely). Sadly I don't think battery technology is really there yet. Plus, anyway, would you really want a high powered microwave emitter mounted at least partially inside your ear?
Nearly all Nokia Camera phones are easy to use. You press up on the D-Pad (or joystick) and then press the D-Pad/Middle soft key and there you go, picture taken. (ok, perhaps you need to unlock the keypad first, which you don't need to do with a K750i). Most Nokia phones take pictures far quicker than a K750i too, but this is mostly due to the fact the K750i has a slight pause to focus.
That said, the K750i beats all of Nokia's current camera phones, hands down for quality of image - yes, this even includes the Series 60 phones with their Karl Zeiss lenses.
Comparing my K750i to my ancient 2MP camera, the two are pretty close in quality of pictures. The "proper" camera probably edges it out in most pictures.
One area Camera phones really suck at is night shots, from excess noise due to the tiny sensor, or crap illumination from their flash substitutes, which are positioned far too close to the lens.
In my previous position we drafted a coding standard based on the recomdendations on this book, then we had a peer review with several of the senior developers changing the rules and recomendations. (I personally disagree with some of the unqualified statements made in the book - then again, for every rule there is always going to be an exception)
It really annoys me where I work now, where developers have a bit of a freedom on naming conventions on variables - you want to access a member of the structure, you know it is called "Memory ID" - you have no idea whether it is actually spelt m_memoryId, m_MemoryID, memoryID, MemoryID, all of which are used in the (large) code base.
The thing is though, there is no way of correcting these problems - it is not really possible to go back and re-write code based on the new coding standards, only new things that are created can really be expected to adhear to the coding standard.
If you are dealing with a large legacy code base (as I am now) there is not much hope for change, sadly. The developers will resist changing from their own style of coding as that is what they are most comfortable with.
As far as I can see, the majority of MP3 players take a "play random(maxNumberOfTracks)" attitude to the next track they play. All the ones I have tried, both embedded hardware types (like flash players) and software for your desktop seem to do this. You end up hearing a track again before you have heard all the others.
The only way to get a random list that does not repeat before everything is played is to scamble the order of the play list and play sequentially through that scambled list. You also get a working previous that can hop through all the songs you've listened to if you want to listen to the song you heard 5 tracks earlier again.
That is a game that achieves more enjoyment from playing than just winning alone. Games I have been finished quickly are not as enjoyable as the longer more involved ones.
There is nothing wrong with EULAs being enforceable in general: people put effort into creating software and they should get some control over that software.
Why? I can see there being conditions of use that would for example limit the applicability of a waranty. For example, if you install Mac OS X on a PC you cannot ask Apple for support. Or If you don't service your car throughout its waranty period, the warranty becomes invalid. (why would a waranty cover your lack of maintainence?)
If you have purchased the ability to use something, you should be able to use it anyway you choose.
The only justibiable use of an EULA is to restrict a software producer's liability. So if someone uses something in an unreasonable way the producers are not liable for any loses that might follow.
There should be nothing that prevents you from using it unresaonbly, just prevents you from claiming foul when it goes wrong.
Erm, I understand the porting effort of OpenVMS to itanium began a fair while ago. I really do not think we will see the end of OpenVMS any time soon have a look here for details.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
Those flags have been popular in England in the last few weeks leading up to our exit from Euro 2004. A newspaper worked out that a small flag (about A4/letter sized) could cause an 8% increase in your fuel consumption on a car.
Wait a sec, I am British and I certainly do not have a "sickening heart of ugly imperial units". I suppose I could be considered different from average, but I am not the only one who thinks in metric here. The only imperial units I use regulary are miles as that is what all the road signs are in here and what my car is calibrated to.
Sure beer and milk is sold by the pint, but who really counts things like that, a glass of beer is a glass of beer, when its empty.. you just get another one, doesn't really matter how big it is. Anyways, beer in Canada is sold in the same way, in (20oz) pint glasses.
You triumph Canada as being wonderfully metric, but I disagree. Most Canadians that I know measure their weight in pounds, rather than kilos and measure their height in feet and inches, rather than say, metres. If for personal measurement Canadian's aren't using metric how can you claim that only the British people are metric in name only? It's only after going skiing in Canada I learnt what my weight was in pounds. The guy renting the skis looked confused when I stated my weight in Kilos.
But that does not really make sense, it is an extreme situation. Certainly from my reading is that the insurance company would have to prove that the person writing the code did not take due diligence when writing it, which is not really all that simple or cut and dried.
Additionally, the insurance company would have to prove that the software fault was the sole cause of the problem, again, that is not always that simple. (catastrophic failures aren't always attributable to say, a few lines of code, they could be the fault of the user by not using the software correctly, etc)
The developer only has to prove that there is doubt in the argument that they are liable for the loss caused, the insurance company has to prove beyond doubt that the loss was caused by that particular piece of code - which is a lot more complicated.
At least, that is the situation in the UK, other parts of the world may be a little different, but I would imagine the principles are similar.
The license is on the tuner not on the viewing device.
For example, if you purchased a computer monitor and a DVD player and connected them to each other, you would not be required to own a TV license to use them together, as you do not have a method of viewing "television". If you bought a regular TV you would.
In another example, if you had a black and white television and a VCR, you would have to own a colour television license, as the VCR is able to receive colour television, even though you cannot view it.
A further example would be if you owned a TV Tuner card for your computer, irreguardless of whether it was physically in the computer or not you would be required to own a TV License.
In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)
Because it is not easy to do? I would imagine it is relatively trivial to make an aircraft avoid an object on the ground - heck, military aircraft have had "ground hugging" radar for many years. The part that is harder is situational awareness, just how do you change a position of an aircraft without bumping into another one?
After all, if a pilot wishes to avoid something he sees in the aircrafts chosen route (eg, a patch of nasty weather), that change in altitude/course has to be authorised by the controller of the airspace, who can either clear other aircraft out of the way so the change is safe, or ensure that no other aircraft is going to want to use the same airspace while the aircraft in question is.
More recently the aircraft industry is moving towards digital air/ground communication and with that comes technology like ADS-B which would give an aircraft situational awareness, which is about the only way this would be possible. That technology has not been deployed widely yet, just trialled in a few places around the world. (and with it, a move towards aircraft doing more of the collision avoidance themselves, without relying on a controller)
Slashdot Mirror
One of the key factors in Elop's choice has to be the €200 million to be paid every quarter so called "platform support payments". If your device sales are falling (which Symbian devices were) you are going to grab that lifeline. This more than offset the cost of each operating system license for each Lumia device sold. The N950 and N9 were already majorly delayed, although, that was more about the software rather than the device. The Hardware was ready for market at least a year before the software was, which is why it launched with mid-tier specifications rather than the high-end device it was originally expected to be.
Whilst I dislike what happened to Nokia and in the end caused me to lose my job there, it isn't all Elop's fault. A lot of the blame has to be laid at the feet of the board of directors. They wanted a new direction and found someone who had the balls or perhaps arrogance to take Nokia there. No Finn would have taken the Microsoft option. No Finn would have likely put Symbian to bed, even though it was beyond saving. The seeds of this also fall on the the head of Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. An accountant put in charge, sure, he made Nokia incredibly profitable for a bit, but lacked vision and leadership when brave choices needed to be made.
No, that is not good enough. You do not know whether the data was sorted prior to the random numbers being applied. The flaw in their algorithm of assigning numbers could be discriminatory towards names (if it is sorted by name) that start with a certain letter.
Given that the number of people with names that start with a certain letter are pretty much on consistent bell curve, it is not hard to envision that if you have a certain name, and the list is sorted such that name is in an area of cells that the Random number gives higher numbers to, you are statistically disadvantaged relative to someone's whom's name is in a more advantageous position on that bell curve.
The lottery invites applications over the course of a month (like Feb 5th to Mar 5th). If the applications are inserted in the order they are received then there is a distinct advantage to applying early, late or in the middle. The previous method of application selection was done on a first come first served basis and this was considered to be "unfair".
The point is that you should have an equal chance of winning no matter when in that period you apply, what your name is, or any other field that you supply. The data in their list has an implied order, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to use some half-baked implementation of a lottery. Really, they should have just thrown dice.
I should point out after 3 draws of this lottery, I have failed to have my name chosen. To find out that the algorithm for selecting names is flawed is deeply disturbing and an issue I will be raising with my representative in parliament.
I think the journalists who wrote the article think that they can prove that not everyone who applies has an equal chance of winning.
I'm not 100% sure about N.America, but in Europe at least, the vast majority of cyclists you see have driving licenses and even own a car, but are just choosing not to use it. Yes, there is a subset of cyclists who flaunt traffic laws, although, I've yet to see any statistics to say what sort of percentage actually do this. (It is probably far lower than people think)
On a daily basis driving (or cycling) around Toronto I see many cars passing through traffic lights at red, especially in the case of a left turn.
in London, UK, there was a study performed to work out why (as a percentage) female cyclists were involved in more accidents than male cyclists. One of the conclusions was the fact that a male cyclist was more likely to move off before the traffic signal turned green, jumping the red light. Although, I suspect that is not what you are referring too. An unnerving number of cyclists do just blow through a red light without any hesitation, which is not a smart thing to be doing.
I sympathise with your pedestrian anecdote, cyclists if they are riding on the footpath (legally or not) should always be courteous to pedestrians. Although, you should really not take offence at a cyclist ringing their bell at you. When riding my bike I am more than aware of the fact I am almost silent so ringing a bell from a sufficient distance does warn pedestrians you are approaching, it certainly should not be interpreted as an aggressive act on the part of the cyclists. Shouting and being aggressive though, if you don't appear to notice, is totally out of order. (for all the cyclists knows, you may be deaf)
(And yes, whilst my bike technically is legal to ride on the side walk in Toronto, I do not do it)
Merging into a lane is a co-operative event, it is up to the road user wishing to move over to signal their intention and wait for a suitable space to move into. It matters nothing that the speeds are different, it is your responsibility as a following road user to be alert for other road users merging and adjust your speed accordingly, or move over to an adjacent lane (if one exists). Yes, if there isn't a safe space between you and the person in front and the person merging dives in (with or without signalling intent) then it is likely if an accident occurs they are at fault. This is no different no matter which type of road user is merging into traffic.
What happens a lot of the time is that people see a cyclist, bus, garbage truck, old person in a car signalling a merge and they speed up to close the gap. If there is a resultant collision it would at least partially be the fault of the road user who sped up in response to the signalling, as they have done the opposite to what is reasonable. If you are a Garbage Truck or a Bus, you pull over anyway (most of the time) as they are not intimidated, but others?
When I am riding in Toronto, I signal my intent to move to the left lane, to make a turn and I wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. You learn to judge the speed of the traffic and how far from the Intersection you need to make your lane change to do it safely and avoid annoying other road users unnecessarily. Yes, sometimes a vehicle will need to slow, but never in an abrupt fashion.
If we're going for the separate cycle lane approach, then the only way it can work safely is if cyclists heading straight on (in the cycle lane) have right of way over motorists making a turn. This is the case anyway, both with cyclists in the near side lane and pedestrians on a side walk. (Unless, in the case of the pedestrians, the cross walk is flashing before they step into road).
To solve the left turn is simple too, you show green to cyclists ahead of the regular traffic signal. They can then perform their left turn, whilst the traffic is held at red. This does mean the cyclists would have to wait for the appropriate phase in the cycle at the Intersection to make their left turn.
Cycling around cities in Denmark and Holland show that this infrastructure can be made to work (and retro-fitted to cities). Sadly, giving road space over to cyclists (at least in Toronto and I suspect a lot of other cities in the world) is politically unpalatable, even if it ultimately is the best for everyone.
Feature Phones are devices that were designed around a specific purpose or feature. Examples of the Feature Phone are: The Nokia 6800, its feature being fold out qwerty keyboard and email. The Nokia 5310, with music controls. Nokia 8800, style and quality over function. Realistically the original iPhone was a "Feature Phone" with its feature being touch-screen input.
The idea is that users buy a device based around the feature(s) they are most interested in. In the days before carrying touch-screen computers, it is a reasonable idea to target devices in this way. Compromise the general purpose of the device a little to accentuate other features. With a large touch-screen and more powerful processors such compromises aren't needed to be made as the UI is not limited to the standard 4x3 keypad with a small screen.
An $85 + Tax (at 14%) plan in Ontario will get you pretty much unlimited nation wide calling and 1GB of Data (on an LTE Network) you will also get Voice Mail and Caller Id. That costs near enough $100. Plus, if you want to have a recent phone you will have to pony up at least $100 or more up front. In the UK (where I lived until last year) you were looking at perhaps $55 (including tax at 20%) for a similar contract.
You can go cheaper in Canada, the almost cartel-like companies that control the mobile industry in Canada have lower tier "Networks" that offer cheaper contracts (the $85 plan above can be found for $60) but you have to sacrifice not being able to have access to the latest handsets. Finally there are the third tier "Networks" that have next to no coverage, outside of city centres, where you can find a similar plan for about $40, without a device and no LTE.
None of these plans are generous in their allowances. Wind (a seller of the $40 plans) claims to provide "unlimited data" but realistically that is subject to a Fair Use Agreement which means anything over 6GB you are asked to pay more, or have your bandwidth reduced)
Canada is probably one of the most expensive places to own a mobile phone
I doubt Smartphones will make serious in-roads to the African market soon. Do not forget that most of the phones used in Africa are not new devices and have had several owners. Given most modern smartphones are rather fragile items and sensitive to moisture & dust, I doubt they will have that much longevity. (Think of how indestructible feature phones were a decade ago and mostly are today) Having a non-replaceable battery would rule out a lot of current smart phone devices too.
Also, the top "features" for a phone in Africa are Torch and Radio, neither of which are top on the list of smartphone features.
You are correct, power is a big problem with smartphones. "Power" comes from people who ride a bike (or walk) into a city and purchase a car battery that is charged. Or connect to the village's car battery connected to wind/solar electricity sources. The people peddling around with car batteries is also where top-up credit is purchased from.
Nokia's moniker for this market was "Internet for the Next Billion", trying to raise the level of device in use beyond basic GSM handsets. Nokia were well aware that the relationship with this market was one that was at arm's length. Perhaps a village could pool resources to purchase a phone (Nokia sell kits for longer range external antennas, solar/car battery charging points, etc) but that was about as direct a relationship Nokia had.
One of the key factors that tipped the decision to go with Microsoft is that is was popular with the Network Operators. They, like Nokia, feared the increasing influence Google was having over the mobile phone market. Android was becoming a household name. They were excited by the idea that Nokia would bring out Windows Phone devices. I suspect the deals to supply the North American Operators would have been impossible if Nokia had gone with Android.
I am sure Nokia probably could have made Meego work, especially considering they were pushing their massive feature phone market towards a binary compatible Eco-system with Qt. The sad fact is that it was taking too long. Meego and the Linux feature phone was bogged down with the same bureaucracy that effectively killed Symbian. Also the strategy would have provided probably strong sales in China, Europe (apart from the UK & Germany), India and Africa. It would have struggled like everything before it in the North American market which Nokia coveted so strongly. I am sure the sales of WIndows Phone in the N.American market is being trumpeted as a huge success internally given that they are selling better than any previous offering there.
One myth that probably should die is that this was brought about by Elop. The decisions were almost certainly made by the board of directors and they found the CEO that could deliver on the strategy. Which is why there is a Canadian (and former Microsoft man) at the top now rather than a Finnish or even a European. It is why it couldn't be someone from within Nokia either. (until Elop's appointment the company's ethos was very much that Microsoft was the enemy, ie the attitude that lead to the creation of Symbian in the 1990s.) There is no way in the time from his appointment to the burning plaform memo could he have forced such a change in direction, he just isn't that good a leader.
Turning off support for syncing Symbian/S60 devices will also cripple the non-Symbian devices that support Mail For Exchange; the N9, N900 and N950.
Coming to the Mobile Phone game 15 years late means Apple's IP for mobile phones is exceedingly week. Other players (Motorola, Nokia, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Ericsson, etc) have a lot of IP in that area. I doubt anyone has called Apple on these patents yet. If Apple starts throwing its patents in their faces, Apple may well get more than they bargained for. It probably isn't possible to produce a phone that talks to GSM or UMTS without infringing on all the above player's IP. As with most patent disputes, the end result will be a cross licensing scheme. Meaning Apple's "innovations" will be used and improved upon by other players.
According to this article on The Register o2 are busy upgrading their network to EDGE. The Register's suggestion that this is linked to the iPhone is a compelling one.
1. You can set at which date you want messages downloaded. eg, you can say that you only messages received after a certain date downloaded via POP.
2. Sent messages are downloaded via POP, I have a procmail rule to filter them into my local Sent folder, so they do not appear in my inbox.
Nokia phones currently have a system like this - you can control pretty much all functions of the "phone" via voice commands you speak. Or course, a lot of the other features of the handset can't be used this way, email, calander, etc. If you want to call someone, check your call list, your battery level, even your signal strength, you can do it all with a long key press of send (or the button on the headset). The system is not perfect, I have yet to get it to understand me saying "Three". (I believe Ericsson had this on their phones several years ago too)
The problem with an in the ear phone type product would be the fact that a bluetooth headset is very low power RF, it only goes a few metres. To communicate with a Cell, it would need to go a few miles (the higher current drain of CDMWA/UTMS would probably rule it out those networks entirely). Sadly I don't think battery technology is really there yet. Plus, anyway, would you really want a high powered microwave emitter mounted at least partially inside your ear?
Nearly all Nokia Camera phones are easy to use. You press up on the D-Pad (or joystick) and then press the D-Pad/Middle soft key and there you go, picture taken. (ok, perhaps you need to unlock the keypad first, which you don't need to do with a K750i). Most Nokia phones take pictures far quicker than a K750i too, but this is mostly due to the fact the K750i has a slight pause to focus.
That said, the K750i beats all of Nokia's current camera phones, hands down for quality of image - yes, this even includes the Series 60 phones with their Karl Zeiss lenses.
Comparing my K750i to my ancient 2MP camera, the two are pretty close in quality of pictures. The "proper" camera probably edges it out in most pictures.
One area Camera phones really suck at is night shots, from excess noise due to the tiny sensor, or crap illumination from their flash substitutes, which are positioned far too close to the lens.
In my previous position we drafted a coding standard based on the recomdendations on this book, then we had a peer review with several of the senior developers changing the rules and recomendations. (I personally disagree with some of the unqualified statements made in the book - then again, for every rule there is always going to be an exception)
It really annoys me where I work now, where developers have a bit of a freedom on naming conventions on variables - you want to access a member of the structure, you know it is called "Memory ID" - you have no idea whether it is actually spelt m_memoryId, m_MemoryID, memoryID, MemoryID, all of which are used in the (large) code base.
The thing is though, there is no way of correcting these problems - it is not really possible to go back and re-write code based on the new coding standards, only new things that are created can really be expected to adhear to the coding standard.
If you are dealing with a large legacy code base (as I am now) there is not much hope for change, sadly. The developers will resist changing from their own style of coding as that is what they are most comfortable with.
As far as I can see, the majority of MP3 players take a "play random(maxNumberOfTracks)" attitude to the next track they play. All the ones I have tried, both embedded hardware types (like flash players) and software for your desktop seem to do this. You end up hearing a track again before you have heard all the others.
The only way to get a random list that does not repeat before everything is played is to scamble the order of the play list and play sequentially through that scambled list. You also get a working previous that can hop through all the songs you've listened to if you want to listen to the song you heard 5 tracks earlier again.
Have you ever played "Once Upon a time"?
That is a game that achieves more enjoyment from playing than just winning alone. Games I have been finished quickly are not as enjoyable as the longer more involved ones.
Why? I can see there being conditions of use that would for example limit the applicability of a waranty. For example, if you install Mac OS X on a PC you cannot ask Apple for support. Or If you don't service your car throughout its waranty period, the warranty becomes invalid. (why would a waranty cover your lack of maintainence?)
If you have purchased the ability to use something, you should be able to use it anyway you choose.
The only justibiable use of an EULA is to restrict a software producer's liability. So if someone uses something in an unreasonable way the producers are not liable for any loses that might follow.
There should be nothing that prevents you from using it unresaonbly, just prevents you from claiming foul when it goes wrong.
Erm, I understand the porting effort of OpenVMS to itanium began a fair while ago. I really do not think we will see the end of OpenVMS any time soon have a look here for details.
Those flags have been popular in England in the last few weeks leading up to our exit from Euro 2004. A newspaper worked out that a small flag (about A4/letter sized) could cause an 8% increase in your fuel consumption on a car.
Wait a sec, I am British and I certainly do not have a "sickening heart of ugly imperial units". I suppose I could be considered different from average, but I am not the only one who thinks in metric here. The only imperial units I use regulary are miles as that is what all the road signs are in here and what my car is calibrated to.
Sure beer and milk is sold by the pint, but who really counts things like that, a glass of beer is a glass of beer, when its empty.. you just get another one, doesn't really matter how big it is. Anyways, beer in Canada is sold in the same way, in (20oz) pint glasses.
You triumph Canada as being wonderfully metric, but I disagree. Most Canadians that I know measure their weight in pounds, rather than kilos and measure their height in feet and inches, rather than say, metres. If for personal measurement Canadian's aren't using metric how can you claim that only the British people are metric in name only? It's only after going skiing in Canada I learnt what my weight was in pounds. The guy renting the skis looked confused when I stated my weight in Kilos.
But that does not really make sense, it is an extreme situation. Certainly from my reading is that the insurance company would have to prove that the person writing the code did not take due diligence when writing it, which is not really all that simple or cut and dried.
Additionally, the insurance company would have to prove that the software fault was the sole cause of the problem, again, that is not always that simple. (catastrophic failures aren't always attributable to say, a few lines of code, they could be the fault of the user by not using the software correctly, etc)
The developer only has to prove that there is doubt in the argument that they are liable for the loss caused, the insurance company has to prove beyond doubt that the loss was caused by that particular piece of code - which is a lot more complicated.
At least, that is the situation in the UK, other parts of the world may be a little different, but I would imagine the principles are similar.
The license is on the tuner not on the viewing device.
For example, if you purchased a computer monitor and a DVD player and connected them to each other, you would not be required to own a TV license to use them together, as you do not have a method of viewing "television". If you bought a regular TV you would.
In another example, if you had a black and white television and a VCR, you would have to own a colour television license, as the VCR is able to receive colour television, even though you cannot view it.
A further example would be if you owned a TV Tuner card for your computer, irreguardless of whether it was physically in the computer or not you would be required to own a TV License.
In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)
Because it is not easy to do? I would imagine it is relatively trivial to make an aircraft avoid an object on the ground - heck, military aircraft have had "ground hugging" radar for many years. The part that is harder is situational awareness, just how do you change a position of an aircraft without bumping into another one?
After all, if a pilot wishes to avoid something he sees in the aircrafts chosen route (eg, a patch of nasty weather), that change in altitude/course has to be authorised by the controller of the airspace, who can either clear other aircraft out of the way so the change is safe, or ensure that no other aircraft is going to want to use the same airspace while the aircraft in question is.
More recently the aircraft industry is moving towards digital air/ground communication and with that comes technology like ADS-B which would give an aircraft situational awareness, which is about the only way this would be possible. That technology has not been deployed widely yet, just trialled in a few places around the world. (and with it, a move towards aircraft doing more of the collision avoidance themselves, without relying on a controller)