You'd never be using both antennas at the same time. The idea is that it's a world phone so if you ever leave your country (admittedly not as much of a problem for many Americans) your phone will still work. For you stay at home types, if you get fed up with AT&T you can switch to Verizon without getting a new phone.
If you want to program a windows phone you're going to need an OS from "a specific manufacturer."
And again, if you're making a serious app then buying a computer to develop it on is something you're probably going to do anyway. Otherwise jailbreak and use your current hardware to your heart's content.
Oh, and I bet all your machines (or at least the ones you can actually write anything for a major smartphone on) all have processors from one of two manufacturers. Guess you need specific hardware too hey? As an owner of a SPARC based machine I'm highly offended!
If you want to develop for Windows, you need to have Windows. Huh.
Seriously, who cares? If you're serious about development you're not going to bother hacking something together anyway. If you're a hobbyist and really, really don't want to buy a Mac then use the gcc toolchain and develop on a Mac, Windows or Linux.
The point is that this "you need a Mac to develop for iPhone!11!" is stupid. You need a computer to develop for any mobile platform.
Uh huh. That's why they've gained in every metric you care to look at during the actual economic downturn and during everything the media has hyped as a downturn since.
I said it would be easier to work with a shared codebase (of any kind) rather than a web app. Say, something supporting Mac, Windows and Linux.
Windows Phone 7 not supporting C is a bit of a problem. Although for the market share, maybe it's not worth your effort.
The decision comes down to that always faced by a person or company who wants to support multiple platforms: make one or more of them a crappy experience, or put in the effort to do it properly on each one. Except web app developers seem to elect to give everybody a crappy experience, including themselves.
The app bar in iOS works just fine, either at iPhone or iPad sizes. It's small and discreet. Swiping to reveal it on the iPad is very nice.
And yes, the task switcher definitely SHOULD have a button or gesture to reveal it. Otherwise it's taking up valuable screen real estate no matter what it looks like or how small it is.
The early years of the Internet were a panacea where there was no Flash. Eventually the web came along, but web pages were mostly text with a few images, and those were carefully optimized so they'd load in a reasonable time over your modem connection. Then we all got broadband and this thing called Flash came along. "Artists" and "designers" with no UI experience got hold of these "programming" tools and went nuts, creating horrible, horrible things such as you mention. A few people even wrote Flash "video players" instead of streaming video properly, mostly so they could prevent (casual) users from downloading and saving the videos.
Today we're finally starting to emerge from the hell that is the Flash-infested web. It's yet to be seen if what we emerge into is any better, but at least there's hope.
So what? Don't want to pay the fee for Mac App Store advertising and credit card handling? Don't. Distribute your app the old fashioned way, completely free of charge.
iOS is a bit different since you can't distribute your app without the store....
If it's not worth $99 to you to get your app in the store then it shouldn't be cluttering up the store anyway. It would be great if Apple provided a sanctioned way for hobbyists to put apps on their iPhones, but the stores should absolutely remain with a fee for entry.
So if I develop for Windows Microsoft gives me a free computer? Can I install Linux on it? Or should I just develop for Linux instead, and Linus will give me a free computer? Who gives out the best free computers?
In that case the OP needs to add an important step: "punch a hole in the drive." I wouldn't count on enough water getting in through the pressure value on a hard drive. I don't think I'd count on ice erasing the platters either.
Agreed about the electronics. Especially in a hard drive. The electronics are a simple board with no enclosed parts to keep water sitting around, so it should dry quite quickly.
I play a photographer part time, so I have rather a lot of large photos. I use an external box of disks hard drive enclosure with four drives. One holds the photos, the second is a time machine backup of my notebook (which has the most recent and the most valuable photos on it), the third is a backup of both the time machine volume and the archive version of the photos and the fourth is a mirror of the backup drive that I can pull out and copy onto a computer located somewhere else. Really, every year at Christmas I should exchange an external drive with my parents that has an up to date backup.
That way most photos exist on six different drives distributed over at least three (and frequently four) different places.
Paranoid? Last year my notebook was stolen and when I went to restore from backups I discovered that not one, not two, but three different backups had failed within a month of each other.
Irrelevant. The metre is defined as 1/ 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a second. If the standard fro the Ampere changes, it will change to 1.602e19 electron charges per second.
Yeah, I said AA-sized because more people are familiar with it, and the actual cells are pretty close to the same size. Either one wastes essentially the same amount of space and weight.
Meh. If your application is primarily presenting a UI then a web app isn't such a bad solution. For applications that actually do something, most of the work is behind the scenes. If it's Desktop only write it in Python or the like and you've suddenly got the entire desktop/notebook market finished. If you want it to run on a phone or tablet (and it SHOULDN'T run on both a phone and a desktop) then write it in C and slap Android and iOS UIs on it.
Apple put a lot of work into their batteries and it's paying off across their product line. Since they started making unibody notebooks they've been using batteries custom designed to fit the available space, squeezing out every bit of capacity. Everyone else was still using generic AA-sized cells in a custom box in their notebooks. Now that they've moved to tablets where you can't use AAs, Apple's got the lead.
A lot of people apparently. The absence of a camera was one of the big complaints about the first iPad. And video chat is one of the killer apps of a tablet. Another good one is the note taking apps that students use - notes and an audio recording of the lecture, automatically synced for you.
Not for cheaper though. Or even the same price. Apple tied up a lot of the manufacturing capacity for parts that go into iPads. So if you want to build lots of devices and you want to do so at a competitive price, it's best to pick things like screens that couldn't otherwise be used for iPads.
"comparable to the iPad but affordable without the Apple tax."
Yeah, the Apple tax... which is why all the other tablet companies are complaining that they can't make a device comparable to the iPad at even the SAME price because Apple has tied up all the manufacturing capacity, and even owns a good chunk of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd never be using both antennas at the same time. The idea is that it's a world phone so if you ever leave your country (admittedly not as much of a problem for many Americans) your phone will still work. For you stay at home types, if you get fed up with AT&T you can switch to Verizon without getting a new phone.
It's enough time to clear bridges, multi-level freeways and things like that. Or for people to get out of poorly constructed buildings.
If you want to program a windows phone you're going to need an OS from "a specific manufacturer."
And again, if you're making a serious app then buying a computer to develop it on is something you're probably going to do anyway. Otherwise jailbreak and use your current hardware to your heart's content.
Oh, and I bet all your machines (or at least the ones you can actually write anything for a major smartphone on) all have processors from one of two manufacturers. Guess you need specific hardware too hey? As an owner of a SPARC based machine I'm highly offended!
If you want to develop for Windows, you need to have Windows. Huh.
Seriously, who cares? If you're serious about development you're not going to bother hacking something together anyway. If you're a hobbyist and really, really don't want to buy a Mac then use the gcc toolchain and develop on a Mac, Windows or Linux.
The point is that this "you need a Mac to develop for iPhone!11!" is stupid. You need a computer to develop for any mobile platform.
Uh huh. That's why they've gained in every metric you care to look at during the actual economic downturn and during everything the media has hyped as a downturn since.
I said it would be easier to work with a shared codebase (of any kind) rather than a web app. Say, something supporting Mac, Windows and Linux.
Windows Phone 7 not supporting C is a bit of a problem. Although for the market share, maybe it's not worth your effort.
The decision comes down to that always faced by a person or company who wants to support multiple platforms: make one or more of them a crappy experience, or put in the effort to do it properly on each one. Except web app developers seem to elect to give everybody a crappy experience, including themselves.
The app bar in iOS works just fine, either at iPhone or iPad sizes. It's small and discreet. Swiping to reveal it on the iPad is very nice.
And yes, the task switcher definitely SHOULD have a button or gesture to reveal it. Otherwise it's taking up valuable screen real estate no matter what it looks like or how small it is.
You've got it wrong.
The early years of the Internet were a panacea where there was no Flash. Eventually the web came along, but web pages were mostly text with a few images, and those were carefully optimized so they'd load in a reasonable time over your modem connection. Then we all got broadband and this thing called Flash came along. "Artists" and "designers" with no UI experience got hold of these "programming" tools and went nuts, creating horrible, horrible things such as you mention. A few people even wrote Flash "video players" instead of streaming video properly, mostly so they could prevent (casual) users from downloading and saving the videos.
Today we're finally starting to emerge from the hell that is the Flash-infested web. It's yet to be seen if what we emerge into is any better, but at least there's hope.
Possible, but still not a good idea.
Web app programming is a horrible, kludgy experience. It's frankly easier to work with a shared codebase supporting native apps on multiple platforms.
So what? Don't want to pay the fee for Mac App Store advertising and credit card handling? Don't. Distribute your app the old fashioned way, completely free of charge.
iOS is a bit different since you can't distribute your app without the store....
If it's not worth $99 to you to get your app in the store then it shouldn't be cluttering up the store anyway. It would be great if Apple provided a sanctioned way for hobbyists to put apps on their iPhones, but the stores should absolutely remain with a fee for entry.
So if I develop for Windows Microsoft gives me a free computer? Can I install Linux on it? Or should I just develop for Linux instead, and Linus will give me a free computer? Who gives out the best free computers?
In that case the OP needs to add an important step: "punch a hole in the drive." I wouldn't count on enough water getting in through the pressure value on a hard drive. I don't think I'd count on ice erasing the platters either.
Agreed about the electronics. Especially in a hard drive. The electronics are a simple board with no enclosed parts to keep water sitting around, so it should dry quite quickly.
"freezing process will physically destroy the platters, rendering the disc completely useless."
Not a chance, as anyone who's ever left their notebook in a car overnight in the winter will tell you - it still works just fine the next day.
Depends on how bad "your worst" is.
I play a photographer part time, so I have rather a lot of large photos. I use an external box of disks hard drive enclosure with four drives. One holds the photos, the second is a time machine backup of my notebook (which has the most recent and the most valuable photos on it), the third is a backup of both the time machine volume and the archive version of the photos and the fourth is a mirror of the backup drive that I can pull out and copy onto a computer located somewhere else. Really, every year at Christmas I should exchange an external drive with my parents that has an up to date backup.
That way most photos exist on six different drives distributed over at least three (and frequently four) different places.
Paranoid? Last year my notebook was stolen and when I went to restore from backups I discovered that not one, not two, but three different backups had failed within a month of each other.
Irrelevant. The metre is defined as 1/ 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a second. If the standard fro the Ampere changes, it will change to 1.602e19 electron charges per second.
(and you meant e = 1.602e-19 As, not A/s)
Yeah, I said AA-sized because more people are familiar with it, and the actual cells are pretty close to the same size. Either one wastes essentially the same amount of space and weight.
Meh. If your application is primarily presenting a UI then a web app isn't such a bad solution. For applications that actually do something, most of the work is behind the scenes. If it's Desktop only write it in Python or the like and you've suddenly got the entire desktop/notebook market finished. If you want it to run on a phone or tablet (and it SHOULDN'T run on both a phone and a desktop) then write it in C and slap Android and iOS UIs on it.
That IS the problem with browsers. It's like allowing executable code in a data document - it's something that SHOULD be safe but isn't.
Apple put a lot of work into their batteries and it's paying off across their product line. Since they started making unibody notebooks they've been using batteries custom designed to fit the available space, squeezing out every bit of capacity. Everyone else was still using generic AA-sized cells in a custom box in their notebooks. Now that they've moved to tablets where you can't use AAs, Apple's got the lead.
A lot of people apparently. The absence of a camera was one of the big complaints about the first iPad. And video chat is one of the killer apps of a tablet. Another good one is the note taking apps that students use - notes and an audio recording of the lecture, automatically synced for you.
Not for cheaper though. Or even the same price. Apple tied up a lot of the manufacturing capacity for parts that go into iPads. So if you want to build lots of devices and you want to do so at a competitive price, it's best to pick things like screens that couldn't otherwise be used for iPads.
"comparable to the iPad but affordable without the Apple tax."
Yeah, the Apple tax... which is why all the other tablet companies are complaining that they can't make a device comparable to the iPad at even the SAME price because Apple has tied up all the manufacturing capacity, and even owns a good chunk of it.
Unfortunately reading the paper itself doesn't immediately make things much clearer. These guys should learn about the "Methods" section.
Congratulations. Your creativity is stunning. If you'd turn it to a useful pursuit instead of making up crap to troll Slashdot....