This thing's only been out for a month!! at least give them some time to do their own testing, which they did!
But they spent that month testing everyone else's phones. Namely "BlackBerry Bold 9700, the HTC Droid Eris, and the Samsung Omnia 2".
Apple has handled this poorly every step of the way. And at the end of the saga, they still try to weasel out of trouble with the old line "it wasn't just me, they are doing it too". I used to try that one on my mother when I got in trouble as a young boy. It didn't work for me then, so I don't see that it should work for Apple now.
Re:So, o/s business is pretty much past tense now
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 1
every other day, news from microsoft. none of them relate to o/ses. so what ? ms has dropped its core business ?
After the over saturation of articles back when Windows 7 came out, I am glad to have the opportunity to read about anything else.
Then they swept it under the carpet and hoped that everyone would forget about it.
They didn't sweep it under the carpet. They incorporated it into the base operating system. I installed Windows 7 on my tablet PC and it worked straight out of the box without installing any drivers. Pen support and handwriting recognition all just worked.
The only thing that stopped working was the button on the screen that rotated the display (the tablet is too old to have detector). You can still rotate it with software. It is hardly surprising that the extra button didn't work.
Smartphone 2002 announced by Microsoft in 2001 - defined as lacking a touchscreen.
Actually, the announcement in 2001 was a name change. The first Microsoft mobile OS to be used in a smartphone was the Pocket PC 2000. It was still a long time after the Simon.
Oh, and I seem to recall that it was rubbish. Microsoft loved using the Win95 user interface on small devices, but I always found it too fiddly to use.
Windows NT on non-x86 is history, but you can install the latest version of Linux on dozens of architectures. Complete distros with all the usual libraries and applications.
That is true, and if you take the Linux based servers and appliances into account, non-x86 CPUs make up a sizable chunk of the market. But as I said, on the desktop (where the average consumer makes the choice of the platform), people want standard off the shelf components. It is there that Intel is still the king.
So this is very, very far from a sensible comparison.
The point was that Microsoft didn't "remain stuck in the x86 world". The NT line was built on a hardware abstraction layer to allow them to support multiple systems. But it was the general public who didn't want to use anything other than Intel-type CPUs.
Why give credit to Microsoft? They are coming to the 64b game years late and with underwhelming products. I've been using 64b linux/unix variants since the alpha and then the AMD x86_64 chips.
They are hardly late to the game. The first 64 bit version of Windows XP was released simultaneously with the 32 bit version in 2001. It ran on the Intel Itanium processor (obviously, because it predated AMD64 product line). The version of XP for the consumer level of 64 bit CPUs came out a year after Intel released their copy of the AMD64 system.
It wasn't until fairly recently that 64 bit computers began to enter the mainstream because people finally started coming up against the 4GB limit.
Of course, despite the bitness upgrade, the closed Microsoft world remains stuck in the x86 world. Meanwhile, others are free to choose the best/nicest platform for the job.
The Windows NT line has run on the Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC architectures. Microsoft dropped support for these a long time ago because hardly anybody used anything other than Intel's offering. More recently, Apple has also chosen to do the same thing and most Linux desktops are x86.
So I guess being able to choose the best/nicest platform doesn't mean you will be any different than Microsoft.
The ASUS ARES is just as ridiculous, but it's real and they expect you to pay real money for it. If you do that, the joke is on you.
No, they don't expect people to pay for it. They just create these cards so they can say that they have the fastest consumer card on the planet. It is hoped that this will raise the prestige of the brand and people will buy the affordable versions.
However, I don't think that it is prior art that will invalidate this patent. None of the examples that I have read here do so. Note to all: the headline is a lie! This is not about a simple transition animation.
What should invalidate this is that the whole idea is the most obvious use of a gesture interface ever! It looks like one of those simplistic examples they use in the introduction of a book on user interface design. Getting a patent is more than just being first to apply - you also have to have a non-obvious invention too. Unfortunately, the patent office is not known for understanding this.
Disclosure of vulnerabilities is the only way to get them fixed.
Surely the thousands of other fixed bugs proves that this is statement wrong.
On top of that, how does a "security researcher" validate their claims of finding bugs if they don't release them?
Because software companies want to encourage people to report security bugs to them so they can get fixed before being exploited. It is in Microsoft's interest to acknowledge the security professionals who report the bugs. They also acknowledge the third parties who assist in solving bugs too.
If a researcher gives a week/2 week notice, then releases their information -- as far as I'm concerned their clear
But what if Microsoft are currently spending their time fixing a major security hole that is currently being exploited. Isn't it reasonable for them to prioritise that over some newly discovered bug that nobody knows about just because some hacker wants their 15 minutes of fame immediately?
If someone notices a problem in Microsoft's {insert function here} code, perhaps {Another company} with similar code has the same vulnerability, and would benefit from the knowledge?
It is far more likely that it will be Microsoft that finds similar code with the same vulnerability in other products which would need to be fixed by the same bug fix. There is a reason why it can take more than a week to find and fix a bug.
Have YOU looked into the problems with said report? Because science doesn't stop with one report.
But the IPCC report isn't just one report. It is actually a meta study that summarizes all the other reports out there. So if you find a problem with one of the reports that is cited by the IPCC then you can just ignore that and look at all the rest.
The problems that have been found with the IPCC reports have not changed the findings because they are such a tiny proportion of the referred works. And none of the problems have been with the actual science that underlies climate change (which is what the Working Group 1 Report is all about). The original poster is correct: the science still stands.
I'll read the report, it looks interesting enough.
What? You say that the climate scientists haven't offered proof of their assertions and yet you haven't even heard of the IPCC reports?? They are the central bodies of work that has been the focus of both sides of the debate for two decades. No wonder why it seems like a religion if you only read the headlines about climate change.
I think the ability to record movies was more important than sport. Also, the VHS format was freely licensed to companies, where as Sony tried to hog Beta for itself initially. By the time we saw 3rd party Beta players it was too late for the format.
So Nintendo rolls out the best thing in handheld games since the first Gameboy, and suddenly 3D is bad for children. What a coincidence. I suspect that this is just an underhanded PR attack against Nintendo by one of its rivals.
The current government has caused economic disasters? If all that was the case, why did John Howard feel the need to apologise for the last rise in interest rates in November 2007, which brought the rates back to exactly the same level that it was at when the Coalition first came to power in 1996? There were 6 interest rate hikes during the last term of the Howard government. The economy was already tanking months before the 2007 election and long before the current government could do anything about it.
Sure public debt was reduced during the Coalition government, but private debt skyrocketed. I guess that is to be expected when you reduce public debt by selling off the profitable parts of the government. Great short term plan, but it doesn't fix the problem as it merely shifts the burden to the private sector.
And what about the current government? Well, they seem to have shielded Australia from much of the effects of the global financial crisis. That is not a bad outcome.
And how did you conclude that the environmentalists are against it just because they asked how you ensure that the energy does actually come from renewable resources. Did you read a call to "ban the cables" anywhere? No.
The Energy Commissioner said that it was a good question, and he is right. You don't just lay down a cable and just hope that the power sent through it is renewable. You need to put procedures in place to guarantee it, otherwise you have just wasted your money.
Environmentalist love to complain about new methods while offering up nothing in return.
So what do you call all those people who advocated switching to renewable power sources in an attempt to save the world? Surely they are environmentalists? "Don't use fossil fuels" they say, "choose solar, wind or wave power". Now that people start heeding that advice, it seems a bit rich to say they offer nothing in return. The problem is not that they don't offer alternatives, it is that people don't want to hear what they say because it all seems too hard or too expensive.
In this case, they were not complaining about the cables, but asking how you ensure that it really is renewable energy coming over those cables.
Are you seriously saying that I should read a book on medicine before I reply to a one line post from an AC that showed no sign of having done the same? Did you also miss the part where I said that I could not "verify the remark about kidney tumors not being fatal"? In your summary of facts, you have failed to state that this patient did die of the kidney tumors as a direct result of of this treatment. It seems to me that the treatment was ineffectual and did produce a side-effect, but that effect was not what actually killed her.
So was the original poster correct in saying that the article was FUD? The opening paragraph states that "a postmortem examination of her kidneys revealed that the treatment was almost certainly responsible for her death", but when you read down to the details in the article this has become "a postmortem analysis of the kidneys, and found no evidence at all that the treatment had benefited the woman-and they found strange lumps and lesions at the sites of injection". Suddenly "the treatment was almost certainly responsible" morphed into "the treatment had no benefit". That is a huge leap, and one that shows signs of this being a FUD article. This is like saying that the biggest killer of patients in clinical trials is the dangerous drug known as "Placebo".
You state that the procedure that they were replicating was done incorrectly, but that assumes that they actually attempting to replicate it. Maybe they were they trying their own idea by injecting the cells directly into the organ. Is it reasonable to state that the idea is a failure based on the outcome of one patient? Injecting stem cells into the blood stream was only a benefit to some people in the trials in European clinics, which suggests that they also had patients who later died.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that this clinic hadn't followed established clinical trial conditions or hadn't informed the patient of the risks. (I am sure that people who try herbal tea to cure cancer have the similar problem.) But we haven't been given enough details to support either of those claims. You can't damn a clinic or procedure based on one reported case. To do so means you would also need to damn any medical procedure that doesn't have a 100% success rate. It may be that this stem cell procedure has a 0% success rate, but we cannot judge that from one single patient. To ask us to do so is FUD.
I guess you missed the part where the AC said "I'm a physician". Now I don't know if that is true, nor can I verify the remark about kidney tumors not being fatal. But I suspect that you can't either, which is why you did the old FUD trick of questioning the poster in a way to belittle what was said without being able to come up with a counterpoint argument. That way nobody can claim that you were wrong because you never actually said anything.
In the strange world of academia, the main way that you can show your worth is by being published by recognised journals and book publishers. Often it is a requirements of working at an institution. Self publishing and e-publishing would not be accepted for this. It seems that doing what is best for the students is secondary to building prestige for universities.
Just because you did this doesn't mean to say that you had to do it. If you look at the PC gaming stats you will see why the midrange graphics settings in games get called 'mainstream'. Only a third of people play at 1680x1050 or greater. It is because most people have fairly basic setups and they do not follow the perpetual upgrade path.
Take a road with a posted speed limit of 100Km/h. Assume everybody obeys the limit and drives at 95Km/h. Let's say there are 50 fatal accidents per year. Now, the municipality improves the road but leaves the speed limit in place. Due to the better road conditions, the number of fatal accidents drops to 30 per year, however, at the same time people begin to drive faster. Let's say 50% go over the posted limit. So now the fatal accidents "in which speeding is a factor" grew from 0 to 15 (or more, due to accidents between "speeders" and "non-speeders"). Did you see what I did here?
I saw what you did. You proved nothing. You had 30 accidents per year when 50% of drivers exceeded the speed limit. Maybe it would have been only 10 accidents if everyone kept to the limit after the road was improved.
But your hypothetical is not as interesting as your links. Your first link is to a government report, but if you ask the government to see it they "won't be able to find it". Did it ever exist or was it just invented by the NMA?
Next you took a quote from the second report that shows increasing the speed limit results in a decrease in accidents, but you stopped quoting just before this:
The reduction in total crashes at the test sites in British Columbia did not follow the same trends found in most other crash investigations. As a means of comparison, shown in Table 10 is a summary of the effects of lowering speed limits on crashes. The effects of raising speed limits are shown in Table 11. In general in other countries, studies of the effects of raising speed limits generally indicate that vehicle speeds and crashes increase, but much of the data is for fatal crashes. Due to the relative low number of fatal crashes in British Columbia during the study periods, only total crashes were considered in the analysis.
It then refers to 13 other studies showing the opposite effect and 3 studies showing no changes. You earlier spoke of lies, damn lies and statistics. You might also like to add selective quoting to that list.
Speed limits are set not only to prevent accidents, but also to reduce the severity of the accidents that occur in an attempt to reduce serious injuries and deaths. By countering research showing a reduction in fatalities with other research showing an increase in accidents, you have ignored the main aim of having speed limits: saving lives.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you even say to that kind of idiot?
You ask if this is a clever use of the Streisand Effect. Had you heard of Elaine Scott before this?
This thing's only been out for a month!! at least give them some time to do their own testing, which they did!
But they spent that month testing everyone else's phones. Namely "BlackBerry Bold 9700, the HTC Droid Eris, and the Samsung Omnia 2".
Apple has handled this poorly every step of the way. And at the end of the saga, they still try to weasel out of trouble with the old line "it wasn't just me, they are doing it too". I used to try that one on my mother when I got in trouble as a young boy. It didn't work for me then, so I don't see that it should work for Apple now.
every other day, news from microsoft. none of them relate to o/ses. so what ? ms has dropped its core business ?
After the over saturation of articles back when Windows 7 came out, I am glad to have the opportunity to read about anything else.
Then they swept it under the carpet and hoped that everyone would forget about it.
They didn't sweep it under the carpet. They incorporated it into the base operating system. I installed Windows 7 on my tablet PC and it worked straight out of the box without installing any drivers. Pen support and handwriting recognition all just worked.
The only thing that stopped working was the button on the screen that rotated the display (the tablet is too old to have detector). You can still rotate it with software. It is hardly surprising that the extra button didn't work.
Smartphone 2002 announced by Microsoft in 2001 - defined as lacking a touchscreen.
Actually, the announcement in 2001 was a name change. The first Microsoft mobile OS to be used in a smartphone was the Pocket PC 2000. It was still a long time after the Simon.
Oh, and I seem to recall that it was rubbish. Microsoft loved using the Win95 user interface on small devices, but I always found it too fiddly to use.
Windows NT on non-x86 is history, but you can install the latest version of Linux on dozens of architectures. Complete distros with all the usual libraries and applications.
That is true, and if you take the Linux based servers and appliances into account, non-x86 CPUs make up a sizable chunk of the market. But as I said, on the desktop (where the average consumer makes the choice of the platform), people want standard off the shelf components. It is there that Intel is still the king.
So this is very, very far from a sensible comparison.
The point was that Microsoft didn't "remain stuck in the x86 world". The NT line was built on a hardware abstraction layer to allow them to support multiple systems. But it was the general public who didn't want to use anything other than Intel-type CPUs.
Why give credit to Microsoft? They are coming to the 64b game years late and with underwhelming products. I've been using 64b linux/unix variants since the alpha and then the AMD x86_64 chips.
They are hardly late to the game. The first 64 bit version of Windows XP was released simultaneously with the 32 bit version in 2001. It ran on the Intel Itanium processor (obviously, because it predated AMD64 product line). The version of XP for the consumer level of 64 bit CPUs came out a year after Intel released their copy of the AMD64 system.
It wasn't until fairly recently that 64 bit computers began to enter the mainstream because people finally started coming up against the 4GB limit.
Of course, despite the bitness upgrade, the closed Microsoft world remains stuck in the x86 world. Meanwhile, others are free to choose the best/nicest platform for the job.
The Windows NT line has run on the Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC architectures. Microsoft dropped support for these a long time ago because hardly anybody used anything other than Intel's offering. More recently, Apple has also chosen to do the same thing and most Linux desktops are x86.
So I guess being able to choose the best/nicest platform doesn't mean you will be any different than Microsoft.
The ASUS ARES is just as ridiculous, but it's real and they expect you to pay real money for it. If you do that, the joke is on you.
No, they don't expect people to pay for it. They just create these cards so they can say that they have the fastest consumer card on the planet. It is hoped that this will raise the prestige of the brand and people will buy the affordable versions.
how does this differ from the ipad reader?
It differs by predating the iPad by over a year.
However, I don't think that it is prior art that will invalidate this patent. None of the examples that I have read here do so. Note to all: the headline is a lie! This is not about a simple transition animation.
What should invalidate this is that the whole idea is the most obvious use of a gesture interface ever! It looks like one of those simplistic examples they use in the introduction of a book on user interface design. Getting a patent is more than just being first to apply - you also have to have a non-obvious invention too. Unfortunately, the patent office is not known for understanding this.
Disclosure of vulnerabilities is the only way to get them fixed.
Surely the thousands of other fixed bugs proves that this is statement wrong.
On top of that, how does a "security researcher" validate their claims of finding bugs if they don't release them?
Because software companies want to encourage people to report security bugs to them so they can get fixed before being exploited. It is in Microsoft's interest to acknowledge the security professionals who report the bugs. They also acknowledge the third parties who assist in solving bugs too.
If a researcher gives a week/2 week notice, then releases their information -- as far as I'm concerned their clear
But what if Microsoft are currently spending their time fixing a major security hole that is currently being exploited. Isn't it reasonable for them to prioritise that over some newly discovered bug that nobody knows about just because some hacker wants their 15 minutes of fame immediately?
If someone notices a problem in Microsoft's {insert function here} code, perhaps {Another company} with similar code has the same vulnerability, and would benefit from the knowledge?
It is far more likely that it will be Microsoft that finds similar code with the same vulnerability in other products which would need to be fixed by the same bug fix. There is a reason why it can take more than a week to find and fix a bug.
Have YOU looked into the problems with said report? Because science doesn't stop with one report .
But the IPCC report isn't just one report. It is actually a meta study that summarizes all the other reports out there. So if you find a problem with one of the reports that is cited by the IPCC then you can just ignore that and look at all the rest.
The problems that have been found with the IPCC reports have not changed the findings because they are such a tiny proportion of the referred works. And none of the problems have been with the actual science that underlies climate change (which is what the Working Group 1 Report is all about). The original poster is correct: the science still stands.
I'll read the report, it looks interesting enough.
What? You say that the climate scientists haven't offered proof of their assertions and yet you haven't even heard of the IPCC reports?? They are the central bodies of work that has been the focus of both sides of the debate for two decades. No wonder why it seems like a religion if you only read the headlines about climate change.
I think the ability to record movies was more important than sport. Also, the VHS format was freely licensed to companies, where as Sony tried to hog Beta for itself initially. By the time we saw 3rd party Beta players it was too late for the format.
So Nintendo rolls out the best thing in handheld games since the first Gameboy, and suddenly 3D is bad for children. What a coincidence. I suspect that this is just an underhanded PR attack against Nintendo by one of its rivals.
That is highly doubtful, considering Sony already offers 3D Bravia televisions, 3D Bluray players, and a firmware upgrade to enable 3D on the Playstation.
The current government has caused economic disasters? If all that was the case, why did John Howard feel the need to apologise for the last rise in interest rates in November 2007, which brought the rates back to exactly the same level that it was at when the Coalition first came to power in 1996? There were 6 interest rate hikes during the last term of the Howard government. The economy was already tanking months before the 2007 election and long before the current government could do anything about it.
Sure public debt was reduced during the Coalition government, but private debt skyrocketed. I guess that is to be expected when you reduce public debt by selling off the profitable parts of the government. Great short term plan, but it doesn't fix the problem as it merely shifts the burden to the private sector.
And what about the current government? Well, they seem to have shielded Australia from much of the effects of the global financial crisis. That is not a bad outcome.
And how did you conclude that the environmentalists are against it just because they asked how you ensure that the energy does actually come from renewable resources. Did you read a call to "ban the cables" anywhere? No.
The Energy Commissioner said that it was a good question, and he is right. You don't just lay down a cable and just hope that the power sent through it is renewable. You need to put procedures in place to guarantee it, otherwise you have just wasted your money.
Environmentalist love to complain about new methods while offering up nothing in return.
So what do you call all those people who advocated switching to renewable power sources in an attempt to save the world? Surely they are environmentalists? "Don't use fossil fuels" they say, "choose solar, wind or wave power". Now that people start heeding that advice, it seems a bit rich to say they offer nothing in return. The problem is not that they don't offer alternatives, it is that people don't want to hear what they say because it all seems too hard or too expensive.
In this case, they were not complaining about the cables, but asking how you ensure that it really is renewable energy coming over those cables.
Next time, read
Think
and then post;
Are you seriously saying that I should read a book on medicine before I reply to a one line post from an AC that showed no sign of having done the same? Did you also miss the part where I said that I could not "verify the remark about kidney tumors not being fatal"? In your summary of facts, you have failed to state that this patient did die of the kidney tumors as a direct result of of this treatment. It seems to me that the treatment was ineffectual and did produce a side-effect, but that effect was not what actually killed her.
So was the original poster correct in saying that the article was FUD? The opening paragraph states that "a postmortem examination of her kidneys revealed that the treatment was almost certainly responsible for her death", but when you read down to the details in the article this has become "a postmortem analysis of the kidneys, and found no evidence at all that the treatment had benefited the woman-and they found strange lumps and lesions at the sites of injection". Suddenly "the treatment was almost certainly responsible" morphed into "the treatment had no benefit". That is a huge leap, and one that shows signs of this being a FUD article. This is like saying that the biggest killer of patients in clinical trials is the dangerous drug known as "Placebo".
You state that the procedure that they were replicating was done incorrectly, but that assumes that they actually attempting to replicate it. Maybe they were they trying their own idea by injecting the cells directly into the organ. Is it reasonable to state that the idea is a failure based on the outcome of one patient? Injecting stem cells into the blood stream was only a benefit to some people in the trials in European clinics, which suggests that they also had patients who later died.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that this clinic hadn't followed established clinical trial conditions or hadn't informed the patient of the risks. (I am sure that people who try herbal tea to cure cancer have the similar problem.) But we haven't been given enough details to support either of those claims. You can't damn a clinic or procedure based on one reported case. To do so means you would also need to damn any medical procedure that doesn't have a 100% success rate. It may be that this stem cell procedure has a 0% success rate, but we cannot judge that from one single patient. To ask us to do so is FUD.
In other news, researchers learn that script kiddies tend not to be very good software developers.
Surely the very definition of a script kiddie is someone who doesn't write hacking software, but uses software built by others.
I think this shows that the hacking community can be a bit arrogant, and they think that hackers won't go after one of their own.
Really? And you know this how?
I guess you missed the part where the AC said "I'm a physician". Now I don't know if that is true, nor can I verify the remark about kidney tumors not being fatal. But I suspect that you can't either, which is why you did the old FUD trick of questioning the poster in a way to belittle what was said without being able to come up with a counterpoint argument. That way nobody can claim that you were wrong because you never actually said anything.
In the strange world of academia, the main way that you can show your worth is by being published by recognised journals and book publishers. Often it is a requirements of working at an institution. Self publishing and e-publishing would not be accepted for this. It seems that doing what is best for the students is secondary to building prestige for universities.
Just because you did this doesn't mean to say that you had to do it. If you look at the PC gaming stats you will see why the midrange graphics settings in games get called 'mainstream'. Only a third of people play at 1680x1050 or greater. It is because most people have fairly basic setups and they do not follow the perpetual upgrade path.
No, just the R&D that costs trillions with no foreseeable return.
There are plenty of returns for all the R&D even ignoring our eventual need to expand beyond this planet.
Take a road with a posted speed limit of 100Km/h. Assume everybody obeys the limit and drives at 95Km/h. Let's say there are 50 fatal accidents per year. Now, the municipality improves the road but leaves the speed limit in place. Due to the better road conditions, the number of fatal accidents drops to 30 per year, however, at the same time people begin to drive faster. Let's say 50% go over the posted limit. So now the fatal accidents "in which speeding is a factor" grew from 0 to 15 (or more, due to accidents between "speeders" and "non-speeders"). Did you see what I did here?
I saw what you did. You proved nothing. You had 30 accidents per year when 50% of drivers exceeded the speed limit. Maybe it would have been only 10 accidents if everyone kept to the limit after the road was improved.
But your hypothetical is not as interesting as your links. Your first link is to a government report, but if you ask the government to see it they "won't be able to find it". Did it ever exist or was it just invented by the NMA?
Next you took a quote from the second report that shows increasing the speed limit results in a decrease in accidents, but you stopped quoting just before this:
The reduction in total crashes at the test sites in British Columbia did not follow the same trends found in most other crash investigations. As a means of comparison, shown in Table 10 is a summary of the effects of lowering speed limits on crashes. The effects of raising speed limits are shown in Table 11. In general in other countries, studies of the effects of raising speed limits generally indicate that vehicle speeds and crashes increase, but much of the data is for fatal crashes. Due to the relative low number of fatal crashes in British Columbia during the study periods, only total crashes were considered in the analysis.
It then refers to 13 other studies showing the opposite effect and 3 studies showing no changes. You earlier spoke of lies, damn lies and statistics. You might also like to add selective quoting to that list.
Speed limits are set not only to prevent accidents, but also to reduce the severity of the accidents that occur in an attempt to reduce serious injuries and deaths. By countering research showing a reduction in fatalities with other research showing an increase in accidents, you have ignored the main aim of having speed limits: saving lives.