How do you send a text message holding the phone next to your head?
You go right on picking nits. A cell phone transmitting right next to your body is going to give you more exposure to RF than a distant WAP. The point is that these parents aren't thinking the whole thing through.
Mold my butt. If the kids are getting sick from radio waves, take away their cell phones. That'll cure'm quick!
No shit. Have a tech bring a spectrum analyzer in and end the discussion once and for all. Odds are, they're getting a hell of a lot more exposure to ionizing radiation from the cell phones they have jammed into the sides of their pretty little heads that from some roof-mounted WAP that's fifty or sixty feet away.
I feel sorry for the kids, I really do... not because they're feeling ill, they'll get over that, but because they're being raised by morons.
I couldn't quite put my finger on what problem Vodafone 360 was designed to solve...
The cashflow problem.
These guys have 2 products: the phone which they sell to you, and you who they sell to their partners.
Yes, and much of that crapware is there because the phone company is being paid by a third-party to put it there. It's just another revenue stream to them. This is one case where the user backlash was too strong and they had to back off, but they'll try again. They can't help it, they're born-and-bred moneygrubbers.
But the market seems to like Apple products pretty well
Sure. But it likes Android products more: not everyone has blinders on or is as gullible as you appear to be. So it works both ways, bucko... not everyone wants what Apple has to offer, in my case because I don't like who I'd have to thank for it.
In terms of raw innovation Apple really is no shining star, and never has been. They're no better than Microsoft in that they take what already exists, polish it up a bit, and then market it (very well, I must admit.) Now, that's not bad: but Apple is no more an "innovator" than any other major corporation. Actually, to be fair, many big companies spend billions on R&D and do some pretty cool stuff: but I don't count it as innovation unless those R&D efforts translate into products. The summary slammed Google for not being very innovative (rather unfairly disparaging, I thought), but more useful stuff (free stuff, for the most part) comes out of Google and into the hands of users than does from Apple. So much stuff, in fact, that Google's online capabilities are driving Apple users into the Android camp. Apple better watch it: their much-vaunted software store is becoming less and less a competitive edge as Google (and even Microsoft) turn up the heat on sophisticated online services. That, plus the quality and sophistication of available Android apps is increasing exponentially.
Contrary to popular belief amongst Apple fans, Apple didn't invent the portable music player, didn't invent the personal computer, didn't invent the online music store, didn't invent the graphical user interface, didn't actually invent much of anything. Hell, OSX is just a GUI layer on top of a very old operating system: Unix, just as Android is a layer on top of Linux. Simply taking the existing state-of-the-art and adding to it does not qualify as innovation, though I agree, Apple is pretty damn good at incremental improvements.
Many of the innovations you cite (battery life, huge displays, etc.) are innovations, but they had nothing whatsoever to do with Apple Computer. Those are just artifacts of advancing technology of which Apple (and everyone else) is availing themselves. So don't give Apple more credit than is due.
As long as they maintain their fanatical devotion to design and ease of use, they will become the dominate player in the industry.
Reality check time: that's a nice sentiment that is not borne out by the facts. As long as Apple insists on its profit margins, maintains fanatic control over the end user, continues to box in their customer base the way they do, Android will continue to eat Apple's lunch. It already has: Android handsets are sweeping the market. People are starting to wake up to the fact that they are not carrying phones around anymore, they're carrying personal computers, and nobody wants to be told what he or she can or cannot do with their own computer. Furthermore, the fact that Apple may have a "better" user interface doesn't mean squat in terms of market dominance. "Good enough" is what allows market domination. If everyone insisted upon the absolute best possible user interface, Apple would have owned the computer industry all these years and Microsoft would have been the weak sister. But as we all know, that's not the way it happened, not the way the market works.
Unfortunately for Apple and any dreams of market dominance that Jobs has, Android is currently more than merely good enough. Also, let's not forget that Google is going after the corporate market now (something that RIM has traditionally served) and that's going to give them even more market share than Apple will ever acquire. Hopefully RIM will able to hold their own: competition is good for consumers.
The iPhone is ultimately going to become marginalized, as it won't offer enough to sensible people to make it worth the money. So far as the iPad is concerned, well, Android-b
No, software patents are bad. I say that as a developer who looks at software patents as an unreasonable burden, one that does more harm than good (even in the short run.)
smart phones are not open PCs. No contract, no service, no active phone.
Not so, my friend. Well, maybe with an iPhone, I don't know. An Android device is just a pocket-sized Linux box that happens to have some radio transceivers in it. You can install and run applications perfectly well, even if you don't pay for phone or data service (GPS, wi-fi and bluetooth are always available.)
A cellphone does not obtain your position using the free signal received from GPS satellites that dedicated GPS units use
Huh? My venerable G1 does exactly that, in addition to using cell-tower triangulation (my understanding is that it uses the cell tower method to provide a rapid initial location and then refines it using true GPS.) You can actually disable triangulation in the phone's configuration screen, in which case it's a pure GPS device. I'm sure there are older phones that don't have actual GPS receivers in them, but any smartphone capable of running navigation software will. GPS chips are cheap, and they're in everything nowadays. Try not to sound so authoritative when you're incorrect.
Furthermore, the lack of a data plan in no way affects the efficacy of the phone's positioning system, it simply means that you can't use a navigation product such as Google Nav or Telenav which require online access to map and routing data. There are a number of good GPS products for Android that function perfectly well without wireless access, because they work just like a dedicated unit: they store all their data in local flash memory.
Samsung phones are known to have GPS problems. I can also confirm this first-hand. I don't know whether it's the GPS chip they use in Android phones, or it's a more widespread problem, but you'll have a lot better quality GPS hardware if you go with HTC or Motorola.
I can second that. My girlfriend had a Behold as well, and GPS-wise it sucked (actually it sucked for a variety of other reasons but those aren't germane to the discussion.) I've not used a Motorola Android product yet, so I can't comment on those, but I can say that HTC's GPS does seem to work very well.
i concur with the majority who say buying a used GPS on CL is a better solution. That said, I have a G1 sitting in a box and would be curious to know if you succeed in cobbling together a solution using offline maps. If you do please post your solution so I may follow suit.
Well, the best solution I found using my old G1 was to install Cyanogenmod, overclock it a little (the extra performance really helps navigation) and buy a copy of Copilot. I think Google Nav is a better solution if you have data service, but if you're looking for a functional GPS where there's no wireless available, or just want a standalone GPS, Copilot works well. There's a couple of other GPS apps in the Google market, and they might be better, but I've not tried them.
It's been several months since I last installed Copilot, and the install process was kind of a pain in the ass. Hopefully they've improved it, but once you get it going it's pretty nice.
Windows 7 is half as old and its existence is already well accepted as not going away any time soon in the community.
Fixed that for ya. I know a lot a lot a lot a lot of workstations, servers, kiosk that are still running just about everything pre-7. Accepted in the community and being considered old do not necessarily have a 1 to 1 relationship.
I wouldn't even consider Windows 7 to be "accepted" yet. Tolerated is perhaps a better word. Forced down consumer's is probably the most apropos. So far as corporate acceptance is concerned, well, sure, when a regular upgrade cycle comes along Windows 7 is what comes with the new hardware. I know that none of my company's customers are rolling out 7 to existing systems, and in fact most of them were perfectly happy with XP or W2K and still see no real benefit in upgrading.
Um. Sorry guy but the vast majority of smartphone GPS hasn't been cellular triangulation based in a few years. While some still are, this is quickly becoming misinformation. Before you know it people are going to start telling you that 2007 called and they want their joke back.
Well, you're both right. Android can use both methods simultaneously.
I think you summed it up nicely. There aren't many "old" Android devices out... I have a G1, and I wouldn't recommend it for use as a GPS unless you run Cyanogenmod and overclock it. Actually, I wouldn't recommend it as a GPS, not for someone that's going to be out in the wilderness. For my own purposes (being someone that got his fill of the great outdoors a couple decades ago) it works great.
because I don't want to pay the carrier for the right to use the GPS chip on the phone.
Huh? You're not paying for the right to use the GPS chip, any more than you pay your carrier for the (ahem) "right" to use the audio chip. Obviously you don't understand how these things work Sure, Google Nav and apps like Telenav require a data plan because they pull their data from remote servers. On the other hand, an android app like Copilot installs all of its map and routing data on your flash card, and doesn't require data service at all. You'd need wifi to set it up the first time, but after that it runs entirely standalone. At least, the version I used last year did. It was very handy to have the few times I couldn't get a wireless connection (and thus couldn't use Google Nav.) I've occasionally used them to double-check each other.
As far as single-purpose devices go... look, smartphones and dedicated GPS boxes are just embedded systems with video displays. Given that market has given over to touchscreens, the functional difference between a smartphone and a dedicated unit is marginal at best. My girlfriend has a Magellan GPS: it works very well, and I have few complaints. But my Android phone does everything that Magellan device does, does it just as well (better in many cases: Google Nav's UI is vastly superior) and offers me a choice in navigation software.
So I agree, with you, if all you want is navigation or mapping you hardly need to spend the money for an expensive phone and data plan. But if you're going to have the phone anyway, the available software is at least on par with consumer-grade GPS equipment, and in Google's case is free.
What an original argument style, fabricate your opponents case then refute it.
Less original is simply ignoring a reply with which you may disagree but have no legitimate response, and attacking some irrelevant aspect of the commenter's statement.
No matter. I may therefore presume that you are claiming that this is automatically an acceptable method of redress for copyright infringement, regardless of its appropriateness in such cases? At least you understand that I'm refuting your statement. That's something, I suppose. It would have been nice if you could have supported your beliefs with something more convincing than a critique of my style.
One day I woke up to find that my age and hair color had been stolen. It was awful walking around being ageless and having hair with no color. Fortunately, I found that an ex-friend had stolen, and took them back from him. I could never figure out what use he had for them, but it's nice to have them back.
I have no idea how you got modded Insightful, but it is damn Funny.
Tell me, since when it is required to be a geek in order to open an online bank account!!!
I simply recommended using a sane password policy. If that qualifies as being a geek, then you definitely need to turn in your card, and immediately disable access to all of your online accounts. You're at risk.
And btw, the problem with the strong passwords is that you have to actually write them down on note, or file, if you don't wanna to forget them, which becomes even greater security issue than having a weak passwords.
I see you're not a security expert. Well, neither am I, but I do recognize that there are many different security scenarios, whereas you're trying to lump everything into one. We're talking about remote banking systems, and how a poor choice of password makes your account subject to an attack (not on your personal computer, but the bank's systems.) Use your head, or I'll start to think you're one of the people we're talking about. Which is more secure: a memorized password of "britneyspears" or a password of "M059P032Z043" that the user has written down on a piece of paper locked in his desk drawer? The latter will be far more capable of defending against unauthorized account access, regardless of where it is stored. For that matter, if the user has half a brain, he wouldn't make any obvious association between the account in question and the password he has written down or saved.
Your statement might make sense in an office environment, where sensitive information could more easily fall into the wrong hands than at the user's home. However, in that situation, you'd have to be a fool to even log in to your bank or other financial institution. Regardless, people need to take some responsibility: programmers can't do everything.
I simply disagree with your perspective that ignorance is bliss, and that the user of a Web application that permits access to one's most important information shouldn't be required to understand some basics. We expect people to learn some fairly complicated stuff all the time, in order to better their lives. If you can't drive a car... don't (please, don't.) If you don't know how to use the Web securely... don't use it for anything important. It really is that simple, and for you to suggest otherwise is doing people a disservice.
If there's a software problem, the first solution is factory reinstall
The first solution for many people is simply to go out to a discount store and buy another computer, because obviously their previous one was "spoiled".
Slashdot Mirror
How do you send a text message holding the phone next to your head?
You go right on picking nits. A cell phone transmitting right next to your body is going to give you more exposure to RF than a distant WAP. The point is that these parents aren't thinking the whole thing through.
Mold my butt. If the kids are getting sick from radio waves, take away their cell phones. That'll cure'm quick!
No shit. Have a tech bring a spectrum analyzer in and end the discussion once and for all. Odds are, they're getting a hell of a lot more exposure to ionizing radiation from the cell phones they have jammed into the sides of their pretty little heads that from some roof-mounted WAP that's fifty or sixty feet away.
... not because they're feeling ill, they'll get over that, but because they're being raised by morons.
I feel sorry for the kids, I really do
That's all the headline you need.
I couldn't quite put my finger on what problem Vodafone 360 was designed to solve...
The cashflow problem.
These guys have 2 products: the phone which they sell to you, and you who they sell to their partners.
Yes, and much of that crapware is there because the phone company is being paid by a third-party to put it there. It's just another revenue stream to them. This is one case where the user backlash was too strong and they had to back off, but they'll try again. They can't help it, they're born-and-bred moneygrubbers.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
That stick having a massive patent portfolio on one end, and the Nazgul on the other.
But the market seems to like Apple products pretty well
Sure. But it likes Android products more: not everyone has blinders on or is as gullible as you appear to be. So it works both ways, bucko ... not everyone wants what Apple has to offer, in my case because I don't like who I'd have to thank for it.
In terms of raw innovation Apple really is no shining star, and never has been. They're no better than Microsoft in that they take what already exists, polish it up a bit, and then market it (very well, I must admit.) Now, that's not bad: but Apple is no more an "innovator" than any other major corporation. Actually, to be fair, many big companies spend billions on R&D and do some pretty cool stuff: but I don't count it as innovation unless those R&D efforts translate into products. The summary slammed Google for not being very innovative (rather unfairly disparaging, I thought), but more useful stuff (free stuff, for the most part) comes out of Google and into the hands of users than does from Apple. So much stuff, in fact, that Google's online capabilities are driving Apple users into the Android camp. Apple better watch it: their much-vaunted software store is becoming less and less a competitive edge as Google (and even Microsoft) turn up the heat on sophisticated online services. That, plus the quality and sophistication of available Android apps is increasing exponentially.
Contrary to popular belief amongst Apple fans, Apple didn't invent the portable music player, didn't invent the personal computer, didn't invent the online music store, didn't invent the graphical user interface, didn't actually invent much of anything. Hell, OSX is just a GUI layer on top of a very old operating system: Unix, just as Android is a layer on top of Linux. Simply taking the existing state-of-the-art and adding to it does not qualify as innovation, though I agree, Apple is pretty damn good at incremental improvements.
Many of the innovations you cite (battery life, huge displays, etc.) are innovations, but they had nothing whatsoever to do with Apple Computer. Those are just artifacts of advancing technology of which Apple (and everyone else) is availing themselves. So don't give Apple more credit than is due.
As long as they maintain their fanatical devotion to design and ease of use, they will become the dominate player in the industry.
Reality check time: that's a nice sentiment that is not borne out by the facts. As long as Apple insists on its profit margins, maintains fanatic control over the end user, continues to box in their customer base the way they do, Android will continue to eat Apple's lunch. It already has: Android handsets are sweeping the market. People are starting to wake up to the fact that they are not carrying phones around anymore, they're carrying personal computers, and nobody wants to be told what he or she can or cannot do with their own computer. Furthermore, the fact that Apple may have a "better" user interface doesn't mean squat in terms of market dominance. "Good enough" is what allows market domination. If everyone insisted upon the absolute best possible user interface, Apple would have owned the computer industry all these years and Microsoft would have been the weak sister. But as we all know, that's not the way it happened, not the way the market works.
Unfortunately for Apple and any dreams of market dominance that Jobs has, Android is currently more than merely good enough. Also, let's not forget that Google is going after the corporate market now (something that RIM has traditionally served) and that's going to give them even more market share than Apple will ever acquire. Hopefully RIM will able to hold their own: competition is good for consumers.
The iPhone is ultimately going to become marginalized, as it won't offer enough to sensible people to make it worth the money. So far as the iPad is concerned, well, Android-b
Software patents aren't bad
No, software patents are bad. I say that as a developer who looks at software patents as an unreasonable burden, one that does more harm than good (even in the short run.)
smart phones are not open PCs. No contract, no service, no active phone.
Not so, my friend. Well, maybe with an iPhone, I don't know. An Android device is just a pocket-sized Linux box that happens to have some radio transceivers in it. You can install and run applications perfectly well, even if you don't pay for phone or data service (GPS, wi-fi and bluetooth are always available.)
Spare batteries are cheap.
Yes but air-conditioning isn't.
A cellphone does not obtain your position using the free signal received from GPS satellites that dedicated GPS units use
Huh? My venerable G1 does exactly that, in addition to using cell-tower triangulation (my understanding is that it uses the cell tower method to provide a rapid initial location and then refines it using true GPS.) You can actually disable triangulation in the phone's configuration screen, in which case it's a pure GPS device. I'm sure there are older phones that don't have actual GPS receivers in them, but any smartphone capable of running navigation software will. GPS chips are cheap, and they're in everything nowadays. Try not to sound so authoritative when you're incorrect.
Furthermore, the lack of a data plan in no way affects the efficacy of the phone's positioning system, it simply means that you can't use a navigation product such as Google Nav or Telenav which require online access to map and routing data. There are a number of good GPS products for Android that function perfectly well without wireless access, because they work just like a dedicated unit: they store all their data in local flash memory.
Yeah, a map and compass. Relying on a GPS for live safety is moronic.
I second that.
I was considering a Samsung Behold II
Samsung phones are known to have GPS problems. I can also confirm this first-hand. I don't know whether it's the GPS chip they use in Android phones, or it's a more widespread problem, but you'll have a lot better quality GPS hardware if you go with HTC or Motorola.
I can second that. My girlfriend had a Behold as well, and GPS-wise it sucked (actually it sucked for a variety of other reasons but those aren't germane to the discussion.) I've not used a Motorola Android product yet, so I can't comment on those, but I can say that HTC's GPS does seem to work very well.
i concur with the majority who say buying a used GPS on CL is a better solution. That said, I have a G1 sitting in a box and would be curious to know if you succeed in cobbling together a solution using offline maps. If you do please post your solution so I may follow suit.
Well, the best solution I found using my old G1 was to install Cyanogenmod, overclock it a little (the extra performance really helps navigation) and buy a copy of Copilot. I think Google Nav is a better solution if you have data service, but if you're looking for a functional GPS where there's no wireless available, or just want a standalone GPS, Copilot works well. There's a couple of other GPS apps in the Google market, and they might be better, but I've not tried them.
It's been several months since I last installed Copilot, and the install process was kind of a pain in the ass. Hopefully they've improved it, but once you get it going it's pretty nice.
Windows 7 is half as old and its existence is already well accepted as not going away any time soon in the community.
Fixed that for ya. I know a lot a lot a lot a lot of workstations, servers, kiosk that are still running just about everything pre-7. Accepted in the community and being considered old do not necessarily have a 1 to 1 relationship.
I wouldn't even consider Windows 7 to be "accepted" yet. Tolerated is perhaps a better word. Forced down consumer's is probably the most apropos. So far as corporate acceptance is concerned, well, sure, when a regular upgrade cycle comes along Windows 7 is what comes with the new hardware. I know that none of my company's customers are rolling out 7 to existing systems, and in fact most of them were perfectly happy with XP or W2K and still see no real benefit in upgrading.
Um. Sorry guy but the vast majority of smartphone GPS hasn't been cellular triangulation based in a few years. While some still are, this is quickly becoming misinformation. Before you know it people are going to start telling you that 2007 called and they want their joke back.
Well, you're both right. Android can use both methods simultaneously.
I'd go one of two ways:
I think you summed it up nicely. There aren't many "old" Android devices out ... I have a G1, and I wouldn't recommend it for use as a GPS unless you run Cyanogenmod and overclock it. Actually, I wouldn't recommend it as a GPS, not for someone that's going to be out in the wilderness. For my own purposes (being someone that got his fill of the great outdoors a couple decades ago) it works great.
You know Android is the operating system. And has no say on the quality of the hardware it is setup on.
I'm sure he does. He was making a rather entertaining reference to Apple's recent gaffe with antenna design in the iPhone.
It's not a purse! It's a satchel, damnit!
No, I'm pretty sure it's a purse.
because I don't want to pay the carrier for the right to use the GPS chip on the phone.
Huh? You're not paying for the right to use the GPS chip, any more than you pay your carrier for the (ahem) "right" to use the audio chip. Obviously you don't understand how these things work Sure, Google Nav and apps like Telenav require a data plan because they pull their data from remote servers. On the other hand, an android app like Copilot installs all of its map and routing data on your flash card, and doesn't require data service at all. You'd need wifi to set it up the first time, but after that it runs entirely standalone. At least, the version I used last year did. It was very handy to have the few times I couldn't get a wireless connection (and thus couldn't use Google Nav.) I've occasionally used them to double-check each other.
... look, smartphones and dedicated GPS boxes are just embedded systems with video displays. Given that market has given over to touchscreens, the functional difference between a smartphone and a dedicated unit is marginal at best. My girlfriend has a Magellan GPS: it works very well, and I have few complaints. But my Android phone does everything that Magellan device does, does it just as well (better in many cases: Google Nav's UI is vastly superior) and offers me a choice in navigation software.
As far as single-purpose devices go
So I agree, with you, if all you want is navigation or mapping you hardly need to spend the money for an expensive phone and data plan. But if you're going to have the phone anyway, the available software is at least on par with consumer-grade GPS equipment, and in Google's case is free.
What an original argument style, fabricate your opponents case then refute it.
Less original is simply ignoring a reply with which you may disagree but have no legitimate response, and attacking some irrelevant aspect of the commenter's statement.
No matter. I may therefore presume that you are claiming that this is automatically an acceptable method of redress for copyright infringement, regardless of its appropriateness in such cases? At least you understand that I'm refuting your statement. That's something, I suppose. It would have been nice if you could have supported your beliefs with something more convincing than a critique of my style.
As said above this is done in many other cases, why should copyright infringement be any different?
So, the fact that it's been done before in other areas of the law makes it automatically acceptable in this one?
Props on the illogic.
No. He will debunk psychology, give you an auditing session and then lecture you about engrams for several hours.
And THEN he'll try to convince you that you can cure your clinical depression with fruits, vegetables and an exercycle.
One day I woke up to find that my age and hair color had been stolen. It was awful walking around being ageless and having hair with no color. Fortunately, I found that an ex-friend had stolen, and took them back from him. I could never figure out what use he had for them, but it's nice to have them back.
I have no idea how you got modded Insightful, but it is damn Funny.
Nope, does not
Does too.
Tell me, since when it is required to be a geek in order to open an online bank account!!!
I simply recommended using a sane password policy. If that qualifies as being a geek, then you definitely need to turn in your card, and immediately disable access to all of your online accounts. You're at risk.
And btw, the problem with the strong passwords is that you have to actually write them down on note, or file, if you don't wanna to forget them, which becomes even greater security issue than having a weak passwords.
I see you're not a security expert. Well, neither am I, but I do recognize that there are many different security scenarios, whereas you're trying to lump everything into one. We're talking about remote banking systems, and how a poor choice of password makes your account subject to an attack (not on your personal computer, but the bank's systems.) Use your head, or I'll start to think you're one of the people we're talking about. Which is more secure: a memorized password of "britneyspears" or a password of "M059P032Z043" that the user has written down on a piece of paper locked in his desk drawer? The latter will be far more capable of defending against unauthorized account access, regardless of where it is stored. For that matter, if the user has half a brain, he wouldn't make any obvious association between the account in question and the password he has written down or saved.
... don't (please, don't.) If you don't know how to use the Web securely ... don't use it for anything important. It really is that simple, and for you to suggest otherwise is doing people a disservice.
Your statement might make sense in an office environment, where sensitive information could more easily fall into the wrong hands than at the user's home. However, in that situation, you'd have to be a fool to even log in to your bank or other financial institution. Regardless, people need to take some responsibility: programmers can't do everything.
I simply disagree with your perspective that ignorance is bliss, and that the user of a Web application that permits access to one's most important information shouldn't be required to understand some basics. We expect people to learn some fairly complicated stuff all the time, in order to better their lives. If you can't drive a car
If there's a software problem, the first solution is factory reinstall
The first solution for many people is simply to go out to a discount store and buy another computer, because obviously their previous one was "spoiled".