The GIMP gui is something you can live with. But there are some other user interface quirks that really make things hard. The selection tool is probably the biggest problem. If I am just making a new selection or adding to an older one, the selection is made corner-to-corner. But.. If I am removing parts of the selection, it is suddenly made from center towards the sides, which makes it almost impossible being as precise as one would want to be. There might be a way to change this behaviour, but I have yet to find out what that way would be. Another thing I hate is that to draw a circle I must far make a selection and then choose something weirdly named from the menu to have a line. Also the way straight lines are drawn could be more intuitive..
Though, also the GUI does have its flaws.. Who wants to have to bring the windows to the front by choosing them one at a time by alt-tab? Why not do it like mac does it - you just select the program and all its windows jump up. And no, the user will not want to have a dark gray background behind the windows. That gray colour blocking my desktop was something I had always hated in Windows image manipulation programs and that I was positively surprised to see missing when I switched my ubuntu to osx. In any case, having to fight with some stupid UI issues while trying to do some simple things is a lot bigger problem than how some buttons are placed in a dialog.
Because I was stupid enough not to backup them first and tried hinting them using a way told to me elsewhere.
However, this for sure did not kill Mr. Fossett, since if the thing was a plane, it would have had to land so that the pilot would have died for sure. It would have meant the plane being maybe 30 degrees tilted with the nose in the ground and wings detached next to it.
Anyway, this was definitely not very well thought of Amazon. It's not very good publicity nor much help letting us do something "useful" with a program that is just completely broken for most of the users.
Hmm. I found something that was interesting that is of correct sizr and somewhat airplane shaped. Probably nothing, but there's still the possibility. However, the frigging site doesn't accept my clicks on either of the radio buttons under the sample image. The browsers I'm using are Safari, Camino and Firefox Am I doing it wrong or is the page really picky when it comes to peoples' browser choises? "No Windows, no helping"?
So, basically user's account now include a home directory onto which the user may save his files. Isn't it actually rare/not/ giving the users a home directory? So, in the end they have only built some new interface for something that was earlier done with the normal file browser interface. The only difference to the old is that the it's yet another interface that the users will have to get used to.
To other news... The scientist in Oxford University have just invented a device they call "wheel". "It's a point-symmetrical polygon with 100 sides, so it has an almost smooth surface on which the device can roll on a platform. No more need to move big objects by letting slaves pull them on ropes. Future designs will include a bigger amount of sides, resulting with even less friction."
It strikes me odd, that data still seems to be stored in binary form, although it would be possible storing for example zeroes, ones, twos and threes and then converting that stuff to binary form. If it is possible pointing the atoms at more directions than just two (why would it be limited to precisely two?), they could store dramatically more information with the same amount of data. Also the data could be read faster, when you could fit the information of two bits into one. Or the information of three bits into two, whatever. Depends on how many different ways you can turn the atoms / magnetize the disk surface.
Or is this actually being done all the time and talking about the data being in binary form on the disk is just a stupid simplification?
The way you suggested doesn't work here. Maybe you've installed some program and have later forgotten it exists? Or maybe you have decided to switch the ability to click by tapping touchpad on and the feature you suggested doesn't work without it. And since tappable touchpad increases the likelyhood of erroneous clicks, I'd rather leave it off. Anyways, with default configuration you can't do a right click without ctrl. However, the suggestion given in the other reply, that I could use the two fingers and click on OSX, too, does indeed work, once I set it on in the settings.
Oh.. And what precisely makes you think I was in a wrong thread? Seems just the right one to me.
I don't think I'm the only one who's made the switch from Linux.. My motive was that I can do everything I can do with a linux, but the user interfaces of the programs are better thought of. I still often drop to the command line to do some things, but often I can just point and click. For me OSX is Linux power combined with extremely good usability. That's very well enough to cover the price difference, which is actually very small, especially taking into account that you'll use the same laptop for several years (in my case the normal life span of a computer is about five years).
I've noticed that the frustration I used to have with computers while I was using linux and windows has gone away. I'd have been ready to pay the extra 100 for that alone. I hadn't actually even noticed the frustration exists, before I got on using OSX, but now I can say I have been a lot less depressed than before the switch. I can configure my UI as much as I want - I can even install Gnome and use it if I want to - but if I don't want to configure stuff, I can let things Just Work. And they will. (unless you are in need of a GPRS connection...)
Somehow, even the linux coders seem to make better quality when they are coding for mac. For example rEFIt, the boot manager you'll need for booting linux on a mac, is really beautiful and neat. Grub could look as good, but it doesn't as it wasn't designed with apple's standards in mind. Also many stuff I've had to configure by hand in linux suddenly come with very user friendly graphical stuff included when they are ported to mac. Of course they could technically do the same in Linux, but somewhy they just don't. I think a part of the beauty of the ported linux programs comes from the fact that you can run X11 on mac/relatively/ well. The programs will run perfectly, but the integration to the rest of the OSX environment is not very seamless. Thus, they will have to port it to Aqua to make it really work neatly. And when they do that, it's very easy and logical also including some other small user interface improvements you'd be too lazy to code on linux.
Linux (at least Ubuntu) works pretty seamlessly on Macbook. Even the volume keys and that kinda stuff worked out of box with nice gnome-style graphical stuff showing the volume change. I had to twiddle a bit with the mouse, though. (in other words, add a few lines to the xorg.conf) But the triple boot howto I used covered that and thus it was no problem, just a matter of having to use vim instead of pointing and clicking.
However, I hear that certain features on macbook PRO are not supported by Ubuntu, because of MB pro using a different chipset from MB. I guess they/will/ be soon, but they are not supported yet. I do not know what those features are, since my machine's a macbook, not a macbook pro. For what I know, the problems are relatively minor, but nevertheless I'd suggest visiting the ubuntu forums for more info on this. (I suppose a person wanting a mac wouldn't use anything but Ubuntu. There's the certain similarity:))
Well, the second and third button are so easy to use that I don't really care. Put two fingers on the touchpad and tap the mouse button -> you have clicked the right button Put three fingers on the touchpad and tap the mouse button -> you have clicked the middle button. This applies to Windows and Linux only.
In OSX you usually get the equal to pressing the right button by holding ctrl while clicking. Sometimes the correct result comes by holding cmd (the key with the cute little apple) while clicking. In old games that need the second button, you quickly get used to holding cmd with your ring finger and clicking the mouse button with your thumb. Also the GIMP menus are easy to use in the same manner. The only stupid thing is that if I want to edit the id3 tags in iTunes, I must ctrl-click, which is quite complicated because I can't use my right hand for that. With that exception in mind I'd say the lack of buttons is no problem at all. And when using Windows, even that exception doesn't matter, because you always just double-finger-click. Which is very easy, given that the mouse button is really huge and easy to click without looking at your fingers.
Confirmed here, too. It is also interesting, how big the "monkey see, monkey do" effect is. I myself bought my macbook because some friends had iBooks and I found them Nifty. Now that I'm always carrying my laptop in my backpack wherever my thumb takes me, I constantly hear people saying: "Ooh! You've got a mac! Maybe I should get one, too". People with Win-laptops often seem to be a bit ashamed of their decision. Quite funny, actually:) And, though I only got the machine in June, already one person has bought a macbook pro because of seeing my macbook in action while at a party. And he seems to be happy with his decision. It seems that once people get to see how OSX works, they have crossed the point of no return.
To mention, it also seems that the more the person knows about computers, the more likely he is to get a mac. I find that very interesting, too.
It should be quite clear that the parent of your post is trying to use some sort of sarcasm. Don't know where the writer is from, but at least over here in Finland it's a common practise saying something like "Veeeery good cake...." when you actually mean that the baker should go hang himself.
I find it very unprobable that a person saying "Just keep telling yourself: 'if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of.'" really means that people should not be hiding anything.
Well, taking into account that the need to humiliate the Germans after WWI is what actually made it possible for Hitler to get in power, I'm against the idea of requiring completely unconditional surrender. I see no other point than humiliation in forcing an absolutely unconditional surrender. And I see no point in wanting to humiliate anyone. I don't know perfectly what the conditions would have been, and for sure even most of the conditions would have kept on causing a threat and they should therefore naturally not be accepted. But I don't see the point in not accepting conditions that don't cause a threat. It is very likely that such conditions did exist in between the stupid ones.
So the point in a nutshell: There's no logical reason (other than deserved humiliation) why an unconditional surrender could be considered a value as for itself. However, not accepting any of the conditions can be logical, if the conditions required read something along the lines: "While surrendering, Japan will get Spain and France under its control".
Well.. I don't know when you learned/your/ facts, but it is quite widely accepted that Japan was sure to surrender in a very short time anyway. Either the people responsible for the bombings were unaware of the situation at that time or they wanted to be unaware of it. I don't think the Japanese could in any manner have killed two cities of people in a week or so - no matter how cruel they were, they sure were no Soviets - , so the idea of using the a-bombs was indeed very naughty.
They use parachutes for landing on Earth. Since the air is too thin, the parachutes will work tremendeously less effectively. Probably the capsule would hit ground at Mach 3 instead of Mach 4. Hooray!
Actually Dutch language seems to have the same word ("te") for too and to. And it doesn't really seem to cause them any trouble, just as it doesn't cause you any trouble while you are speaking.
Only 22 states? What about the other five? I presume UK would be one of them, as UK opt out of everything that has something to do with the world around the islands. And the two new ones, Bulgaria and Romania, might also still not be technically ready enough for something like this. But what are the other two?
Well.. The Nokia 7700 will be introduced withing a month or two. It'll include a TV receiver, a camera, and mp3 player. To name a few things.
The best thing is it's running Symbian, which is already a big operating system for cell phones. As it's widely used, you also get many programs for it. You can also code your own programs for it at least with C++, Java and Python.
So, the Japanese aren't actually that much far away from us.
(I hope/. doesn't fuck my post up this time. At least preview shows it correctly. Though it did the last time, too..)
* A <== A cell phone base station.
o o o o o ________o ________ o o o o o/o o o o \/o o o o \o o.Here you can see how this thing works. o o o o/o o o o o/\o 2 o o o\o o The base station one knows that you o o o o/o o o o o/o \o o o o o\o.are within the range of the circle o o o/o o o * o/o o \ * o o o \o around it away from it. it knows it by o o o \o 1 o A o\____/_A_o o o/o measuring the strength of your phone's o o o o\o o o o/\XX/o o \o o/o.signal. o o o o \o o o/o \/o o o \o/o o The same way, base station 2 knows o o o o o\____/___/\_______\/o o your distance from it, too and can draw o o o o o o o/o o o * o o o \o o a circle, as well. Now, with these two o o o o o o o\o o o A o o o/o o base stations we know that the phone o o o o o o o \o o o o o o/o o.user is in one of the two intersections o o o o o o o o\o o 3 o o/o o.of the circles around base stations one o o o o o o o o \________/o o.and two. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Then there is the base station three. It only needs to know that its signal is not strong enough to reach the northern intersection of circles of base stations 1 and 2. That way we know that the user must be in the southern one of the intersections of circles drawn by base stations 1 and 2. Please note that in this drawing base station 3's circle doesn't tell the distance from the phone user, but the maximum possible range it can reach. (Because I didn't think when I drew the pic.)
Even if the distance info isn't that accurate (meaning that you're using an old crappy analog cell phone most of you americans use), we can still plot your location quite exactly. If we just know that the phone is within the maximum ranges of all three base stations pictured here, the phone must be in the area I've marked with X letters. Often there are even more than three base stations around you. That makes getting the location info even more accurate. So, in a city you can be located with an error marging of only few tens of meters. In suburbs the error margin is at least here in Finland some 500m. (Actually less, but this distance is used by the cell phone company to make sure the phone is 100% surely in the area shown.
Here it just became legal to see where your kids' phones are going if you've signed a contract in advance. You go to internet and give your username and password. Then the site will plot your kid's location on a map.
I'm really surprised that this many of the/. people didn't this in advance. Here in Europe right about everyone knows that. And has known since something like 1995 or so. Tracking people by their cell phones has been possible as long as there has been cell phones. Guess your government and media hasn't for some "odd" reason wanted its servants to know too much of what is possible.
I don't see what damn problem it is if you can be located if you're dying in a pit. I remember seeing in the TV program 911 how one woman almost died when she didn't know where she was while she called the 911 from a landlined phone. I didn't understand why they didn't just look where she was calling from and send an ambulance there. It only takes about 0,0000000(and so on)0001 seconds to find out that info, not a minute like in the hollywood movies. The info about who's calling can be asked from a telephone company. It has to know it to be able to bill someone for calling. Before you had to know where you are to get an ambulance. If you didn't know, you died. Cute. Now you just need to call 911 or 112 depending on what continent you're in and say "I'm dying. Get me to hospital." and the ambulance will come.
Slashdot Mirror
The GIMP gui is something you can live with. But there are some other user interface quirks that really make things hard.
The selection tool is probably the biggest problem. If I am just making a new selection or adding to an older one, the selection is made corner-to-corner. But.. If I am removing parts of the selection, it is suddenly made from center towards the sides, which makes it almost impossible being as precise as one would want to be. There might be a way to change this behaviour, but I have yet to find out what that way would be.
Another thing I hate is that to draw a circle I must far make a selection and then choose something weirdly named from the menu to have a line. Also the way straight lines are drawn could be more intuitive..
Though, also the GUI does have its flaws.. Who wants to have to bring the windows to the front by choosing them one at a time by alt-tab? Why not do it like mac does it - you just select the program and all its windows jump up. And no, the user will not want to have a dark gray background behind the windows. That gray colour blocking my desktop was something I had always hated in Windows image manipulation programs and that I was positively surprised to see missing when I switched my ubuntu to osx.
In any case, having to fight with some stupid UI issues while trying to do some simple things is a lot bigger problem than how some buttons are placed in a dialog.
Because I was stupid enough not to backup them first and tried hinting them using a way told to me elsewhere.
However, this for sure did not kill Mr. Fossett, since if the thing was a plane, it would have had to land so that the pilot would have died for sure. It would have meant the plane being maybe 30 degrees tilted with the nose in the ground and wings detached next to it.
Anyway, this was definitely not very well thought of Amazon. It's not very good publicity nor much help letting us do something "useful" with a program that is just completely broken for most of the users.
Hmm. I found something that was interesting that is of correct sizr and somewhat airplane shaped. Probably nothing, but there's still the possibility. However, the frigging site doesn't accept my clicks on either of the radio buttons under the sample image. The browsers I'm using are Safari, Camino and Firefox
Am I doing it wrong or is the page really picky when it comes to peoples' browser choises?
"No Windows, no helping"?
Anyone got it working?
So, basically user's account now include a home directory onto which the user may save his files. Isn't it actually rare /not/ giving the users a home directory? So, in the end they have only built some new interface for something that was earlier done with the normal file browser interface. The only difference to the old is that the it's yet another interface that the users will have to get used to.
To other news... The scientist in Oxford University have just invented a device they call "wheel". "It's a point-symmetrical polygon with 100 sides, so it has an almost smooth surface on which the device can roll on a platform. No more need to move big objects by letting slaves pull them on ropes. Future designs will include a bigger amount of sides, resulting with even less friction."
An optional standard, which was created as a workaround for some really old computers and using which is discouraged in an RFC.
It strikes me odd, that data still seems to be stored in binary form, although it would be possible storing for example zeroes, ones, twos and threes and then converting that stuff to binary form. If it is possible pointing the atoms at more directions than just two (why would it be limited to precisely two?), they could store dramatically more information with the same amount of data. Also the data could be read faster, when you could fit the information of two bits into one. Or the information of three bits into two, whatever. Depends on how many different ways you can turn the atoms / magnetize the disk surface.
Or is this actually being done all the time and talking about the data being in binary form on the disk is just a stupid simplification?
The way you suggested doesn't work here. Maybe you've installed some program and have later forgotten it exists? Or maybe you have decided to switch the ability to click by tapping touchpad on and the feature you suggested doesn't work without it. And since tappable touchpad increases the likelyhood of erroneous clicks, I'd rather leave it off.
Anyways, with default configuration you can't do a right click without ctrl.
However, the suggestion given in the other reply, that I could use the two fingers and click on OSX, too, does indeed work, once I set it on in the settings.
Oh.. And what precisely makes you think I was in a wrong thread? Seems just the right one to me.
I don't think I'm the only one who's made the switch from Linux..
/relatively/ well. The programs will run perfectly, but the integration to the rest of the OSX environment is not very seamless. Thus, they will have to port it to Aqua to make it really work neatly. And when they do that, it's very easy and logical also including some other small user interface improvements you'd be too lazy to code on linux.
My motive was that I can do everything I can do with a linux, but the user interfaces of the programs are better thought of. I still often drop to the command line to do some things, but often I can just point and click.
For me OSX is Linux power combined with extremely good usability. That's very well enough to cover the price difference, which is actually very small, especially taking into account that you'll use the same laptop for several years (in my case the normal life span of a computer is about five years).
I've noticed that the frustration I used to have with computers while I was using linux and windows has gone away. I'd have been ready to pay the extra 100 for that alone. I hadn't actually even noticed the frustration exists, before I got on using OSX, but now I can say I have been a lot less depressed than before the switch.
I can configure my UI as much as I want - I can even install Gnome and use it if I want to - but if I don't want to configure stuff, I can let things Just Work. And they will. (unless you are in need of a GPRS connection...)
Somehow, even the linux coders seem to make better quality when they are coding for mac. For example rEFIt, the boot manager you'll need for booting linux on a mac, is really beautiful and neat. Grub could look as good, but it doesn't as it wasn't designed with apple's standards in mind. Also many stuff I've had to configure by hand in linux suddenly come with very user friendly graphical stuff included when they are ported to mac. Of course they could technically do the same in Linux, but somewhy they just don't.
I think a part of the beauty of the ported linux programs comes from the fact that you can run X11 on mac
Linux (at least Ubuntu) works pretty seamlessly on Macbook. Even the volume keys and that kinda stuff worked out of box with nice gnome-style graphical stuff showing the volume change. I had to twiddle a bit with the mouse, though. (in other words, add a few lines to the xorg.conf) But the triple boot howto I used covered that and thus it was no problem, just a matter of having to use vim instead of pointing and clicking.
/will/ be soon, but they are not supported yet. I do not know what those features are, since my machine's a macbook, not a macbook pro. For what I know, the problems are relatively minor, but nevertheless I'd suggest visiting the ubuntu forums for more info on this. (I suppose a person wanting a mac wouldn't use anything but Ubuntu. There's the certain similarity :))
However, I hear that certain features on macbook PRO are not supported by Ubuntu, because of MB pro using a different chipset from MB. I guess they
Well, the second and third button are so easy to use that I don't really care. Put two fingers on the touchpad and tap the mouse button -> you have clicked the right button
Put three fingers on the touchpad and tap the mouse button -> you have clicked the middle button.
This applies to Windows and Linux only.
In OSX you usually get the equal to pressing the right button by holding ctrl while clicking. Sometimes the correct result comes by holding cmd (the key with the cute little apple) while clicking. In old games that need the second button, you quickly get used to holding cmd with your ring finger and clicking the mouse button with your thumb. Also the GIMP menus are easy to use in the same manner.
The only stupid thing is that if I want to edit the id3 tags in iTunes, I must ctrl-click, which is quite complicated because I can't use my right hand for that. With that exception in mind I'd say the lack of buttons is no problem at all. And when using Windows, even that exception doesn't matter, because you always just double-finger-click. Which is very easy, given that the mouse button is really huge and easy to click without looking at your fingers.
Confirmed here, too. It is also interesting, how big the "monkey see, monkey do" effect is. I myself bought my macbook because some friends had iBooks and I found them Nifty. Now that I'm always carrying my laptop in my backpack wherever my thumb takes me, I constantly hear people saying: "Ooh! You've got a mac! Maybe I should get one, too". People with Win-laptops often seem to be a bit ashamed of their decision. :)
Quite funny, actually
And, though I only got the machine in June, already one person has bought a macbook pro because of seeing my macbook in action while at a party. And he seems to be happy with his decision.
It seems that once people get to see how OSX works, they have crossed the point of no return.
To mention, it also seems that the more the person knows about computers, the more likely he is to get a mac. I find that very interesting, too.
Slashdot misses the ability to moderate posts as "just plain stupid".
It should be quite clear that the parent of your post is trying to use some sort of sarcasm. Don't know where the writer is from, but at least over here in Finland it's a common practise saying something like "Veeeery good cake...." when you actually mean that the baker should go hang himself.
I find it very unprobable that a person saying "Just keep telling yourself: 'if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of.'" really means that people should not be hiding anything.
Hey. Isn't it a bit impolite singing it only once if you've forgotten it eight million times? We're waiting for the rest!
Well, taking into account that the need to humiliate the Germans after WWI is what actually made it possible for Hitler to get in power, I'm against the idea of requiring completely unconditional surrender. I see no other point than humiliation in forcing an absolutely unconditional surrender. And I see no point in wanting to humiliate anyone. I don't know perfectly what the conditions would have been, and for sure even most of the conditions would have kept on causing a threat and they should therefore naturally not be accepted. But I don't see the point in not accepting conditions that don't cause a threat. It is very likely that such conditions did exist in between the stupid ones.
So the point in a nutshell: There's no logical reason (other than deserved humiliation) why an unconditional surrender could be considered a value as for itself. However, not accepting any of the conditions can be logical, if the conditions required read something along the lines: "While surrendering, Japan will get Spain and France under its control".
Well.. I don't know when you learned /your/ facts, but it is quite widely accepted that Japan was sure to surrender in a very short time anyway. Either the people responsible for the bombings were unaware of the situation at that time or they wanted to be unaware of it. I don't think the Japanese could in any manner have killed two cities of people in a week or so - no matter how cruel they were, they sure were no Soviets - , so the idea of using the a-bombs was indeed very naughty.
I was wondering why it felt more complex than multiplying by 60 back when I was in school.. Well. Two hours of sleep this night did it's job well :)
240 m/s is 14,4 km/h. Which is not much different from 10 mph.
Dude! There's nothing but water in Mars. It's just red. Just like in Red Sea.
They use parachutes for landing on Earth.
Since the air is too thin, the parachutes will work tremendeously less effectively. Probably the capsule would hit ground at Mach 3 instead of Mach 4. Hooray!
Yeah. What do we need Americas for, anyway?
Actually Dutch language seems to have the same word ("te") for too and to. And it doesn't really seem to cause them any trouble, just as it doesn't cause you any trouble while you are speaking.
Only 22 states? What about the other five? I presume UK would be one of them, as UK opt out of everything that has something to do with the world around the islands. And the two new ones, Bulgaria and Romania, might also still not be technically ready enough for something like this. But what are the other two?
Well.. The Nokia 7700 will be introduced withing a month or two. It'll include a TV receiver, a camera, and mp3 player. To name a few things. The best thing is it's running Symbian, which is already a big operating system for cell phones. As it's widely used, you also get many programs for it. You can also code your own programs for it at least with C++, Java and Python. So, the Japanese aren't actually that much far away from us.
(I hope /. doesn't fuck my post up this time. At least preview shows it correctly. Though it did the last time, too..)
.Here you can see how this thing works. /o o o o o/\o 2 o o o\o o The base station one knows that you .are within the range of the circle /o o o * o/o o \ * o o o \o around it away from it. it knows it by /o measuring the strength of your phone's /\XX/o o \o o /o .signal. /o \/o o o \o /o o The same way, base station 2 knows /o o base stations we know that the phone /o o .user is in one of the two intersections /o o .of the circles around base stations one .and two.
/. people didn't this in
*
A <== A cell phone base station.
o o o o o ________o ________
o o o o o/o o o o \/o o o o \o o
o o o o
o o o o/o o o o o/o \o o o o o\o
o o o
o o o \o 1 o A o\____/_A_o o o
o o o o\o o o o
o o o o \o o o
o o o o o\____/___/\_______\/o o your distance from it, too and can draw
o o o o o o o/o o o * o o o \o o a circle, as well. Now, with these two
o o o o o o o\o o o A o o o
o o o o o o o \o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o\o o 3 o o
o o o o o o o o \________/o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Then there is the base station three. It
only needs to know that its signal is not strong enough to reach the
northern intersection of circles of base stations 1 and 2. That way we
know that the user must be in the southern one of the intersections of
circles drawn by base stations 1 and 2. Please note that in this drawing
base station 3's circle doesn't tell the distance from the phone user,
but the maximum possible range it can reach. (Because I didn't think
when I drew the pic.)
Even if the distance info isn't that accurate (meaning that you're using
an old crappy analog cell phone most of you americans use), we can still
plot your location quite exactly. If we just know that the phone is
within the maximum ranges of all three base stations pictured here, the
phone must be in the area I've marked with X letters. Often there are
even more than three base stations around you. That makes getting the
location info even more accurate. So, in a city you can be located with
an error marging of only few tens of meters. In suburbs the error
margin is at least here in Finland some 500m. (Actually less, but this
distance is used by the cell phone company to make sure the phone is
100% surely in the area shown.
Here it just became legal to see where your kids' phones are going if
you've signed a contract in advance. You go to internet and give your
username and password. Then the site will plot your kid's location on
a map.
I'm really surprised that this many of the
advance. Here in Europe right about everyone knows that. And has known
since something like 1995 or so. Tracking people by their cell phones
has been possible as long as there has been cell phones.
Guess your government and media hasn't for some "odd" reason wanted its
servants to know too much of what is possible.
I don't see what damn problem it is if you can be located if you're
dying in a pit. I remember seeing in the TV program 911 how one woman
almost died when she didn't know where she was while she called the 911
from a landlined phone. I didn't understand why they didn't just look
where she was calling from and send an ambulance there. It only takes
about 0,0000000(and so on)0001 seconds to find out that info, not a
minute like in the hollywood movies.
The info about who's calling can be asked from a telephone company. It
has to know it to be able to bill someone for calling.
Before you had to know where you are to get an ambulance. If you didn't
know, you died. Cute. Now you just need to call 911 or 112 depending on
what continent you're in and say "I'm dying. Get me to hospital." and
the ambulance will come.