It'll be even funnier if you need to be running ICS to use the remote app, thus limiting the demographic to the 5 or 6% of Android users running the current version.
A lot of criticism is levelled at Apple for leaving out useful things that make a device usable (SD card slot + USB ports on iOS devices, ethernet port on Macbook Air etc), so I don't think it's out of place to criticise a product from Google designed to be a remote controlled media centre that *doesn't ship with a remote control*.
I have an iPhone, and I don't have a hard time believing 80% of users would update.
Well, hard time believing it or not, the simple fact is, the actual rate of upgrade is a good bit lower--probably around 50-60%.
That number will change now that OTA updates were put into iOS. The majority of those who don't upgrade will be because they never connect their phone to their computer. Now you don't need to do that to update it, and it will still periodically check for you, so there will be an even larger percentage using the current version of the OS in the future.
A system that has saved several family members and my own life on a number of occasions can hardly be called lousy. It sure has its issues, and still suffers in the wake of too much neglect, but it's something the UK should be proud of.
It can be called "lousy" if you end up paying a lot more for that system than you would elsewhere, or if it substantially infringes on your or other people's liberties. Of course, you don't even known any better.
There are only a couple of other nations with single-payer health plans like the UK. They don't perform better than other systems, and are a bad idea.
"A couple of other nations" being "every developed western nation except the US" and they perform very well. As for paying a lot more - the UK spends less than half the GDP per capita compared to the US and we get better care for all citizens overall, rather than those who can afford it only.
We're not even top in the "who spends more" in universal systems.
Sure, we might not be New Zealand, but then who wants to be continually attacked by Orcs?
The UK is pretty much right on the average line, and our outcome is not too shabby. Yes we can do better, but we're not an example of a total "lousy" failure.
I think that's outside "CONUS" as far as I remember? I mean, we have universal healthcare and everything.
Well, fortunately, even Obamacare isn't as lousy and rotten as the British medical system.
A system that has saved several family members and my own life on a number of occasions can hardly be called lousy. It sure has its issues, and still suffers in the wake of too much neglect, but it's something the UK should be proud of.
Because Google admitted to doing it. Or are you saying that Facebook hired people to apply for jobs at Google so that they would be able to admit to what they did "from the inside" and thus smear Google?
I'm amazed that the US Navy doesn't already run something like this themselves - they're the ones that know the communications capabilities and deployment of their ships better than anyone else. Surely given the number of ships and personnel outside the US at any one time it would be more effective to have an in-house team based in the US to handle this especially since many of the reasons listed are not exclusive problems of a "guest" country with an oppressive internet policy (google books, hulu etc that are geo-blocked for all other countries) .
Indeed, that was my point. The OP might not "literally" know anyone who uses Safari, but I was just offering my own anecdote.
I think my experience probably represents the normal distribution a little more - of my Mac using friends all of them use Safari when they need it (usually when Chrome craps out, but that's less and less). One of them uses Chrome exclusively except on her banking website, another is more like me and uses Chrome and Safari equally.
The OP's original proclamation seemed to suggest that because "literally" he didn't know anyone that it obviously extended to all OS X users.
You don't know many Mac users then. All the ones I know do use it, including me.
I use both Safari and Chrome - both have their quirks, but both a decent browsers. I swapped my second browser to Chrome from Firefox, which I used to use all the time.
Pardon my crystallized forebrain, but what's "point-and-grunt" ? Is that one of those newfangled hipster Fail-on-Rails thingamabobs that goes into the weird rounded USB thing on my tee-vee ?
I think it's the summary writer having a dig at the intelligence of Mac users, or if we're being generous, the intelligence of someone who would fall for a trojan in a general sense.
That last graph includes non-smartphones. Apple is not in that market, never will be, and doesn't care about it.
If Apple also made a non-smartphone then the metric might mean something (in terms of "it being not so hot for Apple" ), but the fact that they have chosen to concentrate on a small segment (by global phone use) standards, but one that is growing all the time, is the area you need to look. In that market they are competing well and doing quite nicely for themselves.
Reminds me of when a former coworker of mine ranted about how The White Stripes had ruined "Joss Stone's" song 'Fell In Love With A [Girl]' taking a "really lovely soul song" and wrecking it.
The app store *was not even conceived by Apple* at the time the decision to not support Flash on iOS (then called iPhone OS) - it was all about HTML5 apps. Apple put a lot of time and marketing effort into HTML5 apps. The native app store did not come until later, and it was a surprise avenue even to Apple. They were expecting most of the development to be via HTML5 apps (that you can still do, outside of the store ecosystem).
Still, your frothing, anonymous rage is quite funny.
It was all about Flash not working well - it was a resource hog, crashy and slow. They get around it on the desktop by throwing CPU horsepower at it, but you can't do that on a mobile device.
I would rather not advertise for those apple products. If apple would like to pay me to do that, they can contact me.
Then say "Do you know you know that the menus on your website don't work on my phone?"
Just silently fuming at them or pandering to their laziness in web design isn't going to fix anything.
Your Apple hate and worry about mentioning how something doesn't work on Apple products to a single person in a mid level managerial position might count as "free advertising" for a company that spends more on product advertising and placement than the GDP of some small nations doesn't need to affect your complaint that the restaurant is not serving its customers effectively.
Bullshit. If Jobs wanted to lead the way to destroying flash he should have banned it from OS X too. The fact that he didn't just proves what everyone has said all along that the real intention of banning Flash on iOS is to eliminate an avenue for people to make money selling stuff without paying an Apple tax.
Except that the app store did not exist on the iPhone when it launched and didn't arrive for a some time afterwards. Apple didn't even realise that the app store would be something that would take off so heavily - hence all the marketing into HTML5 apps around that time (a development method that is still supported).
He decided to kill it to prevent applications that did not use the iOS store from running on iPhone. It had nothing to do with flash sucking and everything to do with control of the platform.
No, he really didn't. He killed it because it was dog slow, resource intensive and crashed all the damn time (on the desktop). His vision for the mobile user experience meant that it simply wouldn't look good or work at all well. He was anal about the user experience, and Flash simply would not perform on a mobile power and CPU/GPU budget.
The iOS app store thing was just a bonus (and unlikely, given how they also promoted and supported HTML5 apps that you can get outside of the app store in exactly the same way as you'd get hypothetical flash apps).
Ah, but plants don't make O2 from CO2 - that way is very expensive, as we've see, Plants generate oxygen as a byproduct of water splitting. There's an enzyme pumped by an electron transport chain fed by sunlight that cracks water to generate protons. The byproduct is oxygen, which is a waste product at this stage.
The CO2 is fixed into various sugars in a different light-pumped reaction, so it's never actually pulled all the way down to bare carbon.
Splitting water to harvest protons (or hydrogen) and oxygen is less energy intensive (but still pretty costly) than trying to generate oxygen from CO2.
We'd be much better off oxygenating blood by cracking water - after all, there's plenty of water around in the body, and the protons are slightly easier to deal with than elemental carbon as a by product. The trouble is doing it energy efficiently - we're still nowhere near as good at it as Photosystem II, but we are working on replicating that remarkable Ni/Fe hydrogenase metal centre.
Slashdot Mirror
My Doctor is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, my utility is not. Law generally lags technology.
Yes they are, at least in the EU - I assume something similar is in place in the US.
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK, for example.
So it's an Android accessory then.
It'll be even funnier if you need to be running ICS to use the remote app, thus limiting the demographic to the 5 or 6% of Android users running the current version.
A lot of criticism is levelled at Apple for leaving out useful things that make a device usable (SD card slot + USB ports on iOS devices, ethernet port on Macbook Air etc), so I don't think it's out of place to criticise a product from Google designed to be a remote controlled media centre that *doesn't ship with a remote control*.
I think it's clear now that Facebook are a front for The Shadows in the coming war.
What *do* I want?
Cheeky brit, so do we now. I read it on the tubes.
You think Obamacare is the same as universal healthcare. *laughs hysterically*
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
It's a good start, but you have a ways to go before you can start calling what the US has a universal system.
I have an iPhone, and I don't have a hard time believing 80% of users would update.
Well, hard time believing it or not, the simple fact is, the actual rate of upgrade is a good bit lower--probably around 50-60%.
That number will change now that OTA updates were put into iOS. The majority of those who don't upgrade will be because they never connect their phone to their computer. Now you don't need to do that to update it, and it will still periodically check for you, so there will be an even larger percentage using the current version of the OS in the future.
*To be trolled in a voice similar to the Mac + Virus threads*
But I thought Android fragmentation was a myth created by jealous iPhone users!!! There is no fragmentation on Android!
Am I doing it right?
It can be called "lousy" if you end up paying a lot more for that system than you would elsewhere, or if it substantially infringes on your or other people's liberties. Of course, you don't even known any better.
There are only a couple of other nations with single-payer health plans like the UK. They don't perform better than other systems, and are a bad idea.
"A couple of other nations" being "every developed western nation except the US" and they perform very well. As for paying a lot more - the UK spends less than half the GDP per capita compared to the US and we get better care for all citizens overall, rather than those who can afford it only.
We're not even top in the "who spends more" in universal systems.
Sure, we might not be New Zealand, but then who wants to be continually attacked by Orcs?
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
The UK is pretty much right on the average line, and our outcome is not too shabby. Yes we can do better, but we're not an example of a total "lousy" failure.
Well, fortunately, even Obamacare isn't as lousy and rotten as the British medical system.
A system that has saved several family members and my own life on a number of occasions can hardly be called lousy. It sure has its issues, and still suffers in the wake of too much neglect, but it's something the UK should be proud of.
Likely you've never left CONUS for any length of your life at all.
Amusing. I was born and live in the UK.
I think that's outside "CONUS" as far as I remember? I mean, we have universal healthcare and everything.
Because Google admitted to doing it. Or are you saying that Facebook hired people to apply for jobs at Google so that they would be able to admit to what they did "from the inside" and thus smear Google?
Accidental. Right.
For sale: 1x bridge, no time wasters.
Honestly yes, I agree with the above poster.
I'm amazed that the US Navy doesn't already run something like this themselves - they're the ones that know the communications capabilities and deployment of their ships better than anyone else. Surely given the number of ships and personnel outside the US at any one time it would be more effective to have an in-house team based in the US to handle this especially since many of the reasons listed are not exclusive problems of a "guest" country with an oppressive internet policy (google books, hulu etc that are geo-blocked for all other countries) .
Indeed, that was my point. The OP might not "literally" know anyone who uses Safari, but I was just offering my own anecdote.
I think my experience probably represents the normal distribution a little more - of my Mac using friends all of them use Safari when they need it (usually when Chrome craps out, but that's less and less). One of them uses Chrome exclusively except on her banking website, another is more like me and uses Chrome and Safari equally.
The OP's original proclamation seemed to suggest that because "literally" he didn't know anyone that it obviously extended to all OS X users.
You don't know many Mac users then. All the ones I know do use it, including me.
I use both Safari and Chrome - both have their quirks, but both a decent browsers. I swapped my second browser to Chrome from Firefox, which I used to use all the time.
I never claimed they wrote the music... I just took issue with the statement that the lyrics came from a Kanya song...
Oh I'm not laughing at you - I'm agreeing with you, and it reminded me of a similar situation.
Pardon my crystallized forebrain, but what's "point-and-grunt" ? Is that one of those newfangled hipster Fail-on-Rails thingamabobs that goes into the weird rounded USB thing on my tee-vee ?
I think it's the summary writer having a dig at the intelligence of Mac users, or if we're being generous, the intelligence of someone who would fall for a trojan in a general sense.
I don't hate apple, I am typing this on a macbook air.
Ah, I misread you; instead you're just overly sensitive about perceived free advertising? Do you de-badge your car? ;)
That last graph includes non-smartphones. Apple is not in that market, never will be, and doesn't care about it.
If Apple also made a non-smartphone then the metric might mean something (in terms of "it being not so hot for Apple" ), but the fact that they have chosen to concentrate on a small segment (by global phone use) standards, but one that is growing all the time, is the area you need to look. In that market they are competing well and doing quite nicely for themselves.
Reminds me of when a former coworker of mine ranted about how The White Stripes had ruined "Joss Stone's" song 'Fell In Love With A [Girl]' taking a "really lovely soul song" and wrecking it.
I laughed. I'm not sure he understood why.
for a company that spends more on product advertising and placement than the GDP of some small nations
How much goes to you, bonch?
You'd have to ask bonch that.
You forgot to log in again, kid.
Your revisionist view of history is hilarious.
The app store *was not even conceived by Apple* at the time the decision to not support Flash on iOS (then called iPhone OS) - it was all about HTML5 apps. Apple put a lot of time and marketing effort into HTML5 apps. The native app store did not come until later, and it was a surprise avenue even to Apple. They were expecting most of the development to be via HTML5 apps (that you can still do, outside of the store ecosystem).
Still, your frothing, anonymous rage is quite funny.
It was all about Flash not working well - it was a resource hog, crashy and slow. They get around it on the desktop by throwing CPU horsepower at it, but you can't do that on a mobile device.
I would rather not advertise for those apple products. If apple would like to pay me to do that, they can contact me.
Then say "Do you know you know that the menus on your website don't work on my phone?"
Just silently fuming at them or pandering to their laziness in web design isn't going to fix anything.
Your Apple hate and worry about mentioning how something doesn't work on Apple products to a single person in a mid level managerial position might count as "free advertising" for a company that spends more on product advertising and placement than the GDP of some small nations doesn't need to affect your complaint that the restaurant is not serving its customers effectively.
Bullshit. If Jobs wanted to lead the way to destroying flash he should have banned it from OS X too. The fact that he didn't just proves what everyone has said all along that the real intention of banning Flash on iOS is to eliminate an avenue for people to make money selling stuff without paying an Apple tax.
Except that the app store did not exist on the iPhone when it launched and didn't arrive for a some time afterwards. Apple didn't even realise that the app store would be something that would take off so heavily - hence all the marketing into HTML5 apps around that time (a development method that is still supported).
He decided to kill it to prevent applications that did not use the iOS store from running on iPhone. It had nothing to do with flash sucking and everything to do with control of the platform.
No, he really didn't. He killed it because it was dog slow, resource intensive and crashed all the damn time (on the desktop). His vision for the mobile user experience meant that it simply wouldn't look good or work at all well. He was anal about the user experience, and Flash simply would not perform on a mobile power and CPU/GPU budget.
The iOS app store thing was just a bonus (and unlikely, given how they also promoted and supported HTML5 apps that you can get outside of the app store in exactly the same way as you'd get hypothetical flash apps).
Ah, but plants don't make O2 from CO2 - that way is very expensive, as we've see, Plants generate oxygen as a byproduct of water splitting. There's an enzyme pumped by an electron transport chain fed by sunlight that cracks water to generate protons. The byproduct is oxygen, which is a waste product at this stage.
The CO2 is fixed into various sugars in a different light-pumped reaction, so it's never actually pulled all the way down to bare carbon.
Splitting water to harvest protons (or hydrogen) and oxygen is less energy intensive (but still pretty costly) than trying to generate oxygen from CO2.
We'd be much better off oxygenating blood by cracking water - after all, there's plenty of water around in the body, and the protons are slightly easier to deal with than elemental carbon as a by product. The trouble is doing it energy efficiently - we're still nowhere near as good at it as Photosystem II, but we are working on replicating that remarkable Ni/Fe hydrogenase metal centre.