People compare marketshare of "MS-Windows" machines to Apple (MacOS) machines all the time. One is a huge variety of machines (MS-Windows) and the other is just a few models all from one company (Apple).
So what is there to not understand?
There are a dozen Android phones for which the hardware is superior to the iPhone. And the "environment" is basically Android for all of them, and they can almost all run almost all the same apps. So yes, it *does* make sense to lump all of the Android phones together when comparing to lumping the three models of the iPhone together.
And I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but there are already a lot more Android OS phones in use than there are iOS phones.... get your facts straight!
>"Figuring Out Why Android Wins On Phones, But Not Tablets"
Android hasn't "lost" on tablets. Real Android tablets (3.0) have only just arrived, and really only one has been available for more than a month- the Xoom (and that was pushed out a few months too soon). How can something that just came out "not win"? Android phones didn't "win" in even a year- it takes time to build a product line and for the word to spread.
Revisit Android tablets in just a year and THEN see how they are doing...
But actually, that is not what everyone is doing. Many people are setting it up and neighbors are using it. That is a different story- they are not guests.
Yes, it is a pain to get guests access with a key- even WEP. "Was that an uppercase 'L'?" "How many underscores?" "Did you say 'M' or 'N'?"
>Shouldn't the ISP deliver my bits regardless of what they are?
No. That is not the agreement you signed. Now, if you are paying 10 times as much for a *business* class connection, you can probably "share" it all you want. But home rates are low because it is understood and agreed that it is for the use by the occupants of the resident (and their immediate guests while on the property), only.
That was what I was going to point out to people....
I am guessing that "sharing" a home connection violates the terms of service agreement signed with 90+% of ISP's. It certainly does with Cox.
Now, if you are paying 10 times as much for a *business* class connection, you can probably "share" it all you want. But home rates are low because it is understood and agreed that it is for the use by the occupants of the resident (and their immediate guests while on the property), only.
I *have* tried to refuse to give my SSN to a doctor and they refused treatment. And more than once. And it had nothing to do with insurance. So don't be too quick to dismiss his premise.
+1 I wish I could mod you up because that is EXACTLY what I was going to say.
Obviously it will not be voluntary, except in the sense that you can choose not to do any online business/purchasing anymore. Once a system catches on, it won't be "optional" anymore.
> "end the golden era of tax-free Internet shopping"
Sorry to break the news, but Internet shopping is *NOT* tax free in most states. Just because the retailer doesn't collect it doesn't mean you don't have to pay it. In most states, you are required, by law, to report all your out of state purchases on your income taxes (usually on a separate form) and pay your state sales tax on those purchases.
The proposed laws are not "raising" taxes- they are enforcing collection by shifting the burden from the consumer to the retailer.
Exactly. Plus I seriously doubt they are going to get anywhere near the performance or efficiency that Linux (Android Linux, other Linuxes) or iOS does on ARM because they are so late to the game. I bet it would take years to tune it to work "well enough", which would STILL be way behind the competition.
So start with no apps, no performance, no efficiency, and probably not much demand. If they can pull off MS-Windows on ARM as a market success, I would be REALLY surprised.
>"Four US senators on Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police," "Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts"
That is not "evading police". If anything it is avoiding entrapment and inconvenience. The practice of putting up a "check point" road block is dubious to say the least. They are subjecting people to search and seizure with ZERO probable cause.
I don't like the idea of people driving drunk, and know it is a big social problem, but you don't just throw everyone's civil liberties out the window and cause major inconveniences as a "solution".
Case in point- I have never consumed alcohol nor any illicit drug in my whole life. I got stuck on my motorcycle in one of those damn checkpoints. It wasted a considerable amount of my time as I had to wait in line in very hot weather in full riding gear, pull over, take off most of my riding gear, go into my pack to get my ID while the officers are looking at me like I am going to pull out a gun, wait, then reassemble everything. I also felt very uncomfortable and threatened by the situation.
>"Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects' fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center."
"Suspects"?? Oh, so they will fingerprint anyone they want because it is easy and faster, and keep that data on file forever? If so, then so much for civil liberties. Every time they search the database, they will be searching your identity along with it. You could end up being a suspect in numerous other "crimes" simply because you touched something near one. This leads to having to "prove your innocence". And that is not even starting to address the issue of errors or frames.
This is evolving into a horrible idea. Fingerprints should only be taken from people arrested as a serious crime suspect, and they should be DELETED (which probably never happens) if the person is not convicted.
>"find out how much light pollution there is in their area."
Tons! But I live in a city and there isn't much I can do about it. Mostly poorly designed street lights. Then there are those neighbors that think their property is so much better with a megawatt of flood lights all over. Ug.
But I would GLADLY put up with even more light pollution if it meant less NOISE pollution from damn modified motorcycles, leaf blowers, barking dogs, horns, sirens, and ESPECIALLY those "boom box cars" projecting their damn bass for 1/2 mile in all directions.
I grew up in a wooded suburb with no streetlights... it was so quiet and dark and peaceful. The sky was so pretty and the air so quiet.... Oh the good 'ol days. Didn't know how important those things were until I lost them.
>"Once again, the IE folk have proven they are the coolest group in Redmond!"
I think the cake is more of an insult (as if Mozilla needs congratulations by the all powerful Microsoft). But yes, the IE Folk CAN produce a cross-platform food, just not a cross-platform browser;) And their current browser doesn't even run on XP- some 40% of the MS-Windows installs! Maybe if they ever do that, Mozilla can send THEM a cake...
I am surprised they still offer no 64 bit build download options for Linux and other OS's. I doubt it would make much difference, but it seems odd now that it is 2011...
I disagree strongly with their ruling. If I place a password on my router and use encryption, it is OBVIOUS it is a private network. Breaking into that network for ANY reason is, essentially, trespassing and SHOULD be a criminal offense. It doesn't matter the reason.
Under their logic, I could place locks on my fences on my property, but someone would be allowed to go onto my property, pick the locks, and break into my backyard... but that is OK as long as they wear a blindfold?
Just having a wireless network is NOT an invitation for people to break into it or use it. One could argue that if it is not encrypted, then it is a public network... and I could go for that. But to say it is OK to break encryption (and it doesn't matter how easy that is) to gain access to a private network is just wrong. The encryption is a clear sign that those not given a key are not welcome, and someone using that network is using bandwidth and resources without permission, even if they don't "snoop".
My issue/problem would be with any device in which the user places the front of their hand on a scanner, unless their fingers are hanging off the edge or something.
Even if the device can't scan finger/palm prints, that doesn't mean anything to Joe-blow on the street not familiar with the technology. A layperson would understand, intuitively, that it would probably not be possible for prints to be lifted from something not covered or touched or in proximity to a sensor.
It would be like news photographer pointing a camera at you and then telling you- "Don't worry, I am taking a picture of your ear only, I am not taking a picture of your face". Even if he shows you what is on the screen of his camera, and it looks like only an ear, that doesn't mean that the camera didn't take a full face photo...
In the USA, I have never seen a PIN used with a credit card (and I have been using them quite a bit longer than you;) ). Check/Debit card yes, credit card no. The most I have seen used was to require you to key in your zip code; which is not much security.
And yes, if you can choose not to use it, of course nobody will- because it is not their money that is at risk... it becomes a "society" problem and we all end up paying for theft with higher prices and fees.
Yes, vein patterns would be a good choice, also. Something that is inside the body- not easily extracted without knowledge/permission, something difficult to replicate or alter, something not "left" all over the place. However, obtaining one would have to be from a part of the body other than the palm, because they could use that opportunity to also obtain a full set of fingerprints (or even palm surface print) without much effort and without the target knowing it. Unless it could be designed such that is it impossible and apparent that it does not include the fingers, the back of the hand would be safer.
Slashdot Mirror
People compare marketshare of "MS-Windows" machines to Apple (MacOS) machines all the time. One is a huge variety of machines (MS-Windows) and the other is just a few models all from one company (Apple).
So what is there to not understand?
There are a dozen Android phones for which the hardware is superior to the iPhone. And the "environment" is basically Android for all of them, and they can almost all run almost all the same apps. So yes, it *does* make sense to lump all of the Android phones together when comparing to lumping the three models of the iPhone together.
And I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but there are already a lot more Android OS phones in use than there are iOS phones.... get your facts straight!
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/Android_number_one_in_us_smartphone_market_share.php
>"Figuring Out Why Android Wins On Phones, But Not Tablets"
Android hasn't "lost" on tablets. Real Android tablets (3.0) have only just arrived, and really only one has been available for more than a month- the Xoom (and that was pushed out a few months too soon). How can something that just came out "not win"? Android phones didn't "win" in even a year- it takes time to build a product line and for the word to spread.
Revisit Android tablets in just a year and THEN see how they are doing...
Not totally. But you have at least some responsibility too, especially if you know it is happening. It is certainly a grey area.
But actually, that is not what everyone is doing. Many people are setting it up and neighbors are using it. That is a different story- they are not guests.
Yes, it is a pain to get guests access with a key- even WEP. "Was that an uppercase 'L'?" "How many underscores?" "Did you say 'M' or 'N'?"
>Shouldn't the ISP deliver my bits regardless of what they are?
No. That is not the agreement you signed. Now, if you are paying 10 times as much for a *business* class connection, you can probably "share" it all you want. But home rates are low because it is understood and agreed that it is for the use by the occupants of the resident (and their immediate guests while on the property), only.
That was what I was going to point out to people....
I am guessing that "sharing" a home connection violates the terms of service agreement signed with 90+% of ISP's. It certainly does with Cox.
Now, if you are paying 10 times as much for a *business* class connection, you can probably "share" it all you want. But home rates are low because it is understood and agreed that it is for the use by the occupants of the resident (and their immediate guests while on the property), only.
Yes. That is why I pay big $ for a smart phone. Problem solved. If I DID have my Xoom with me, which is unlikely anyway, then I could tether.
I *have* tried to refuse to give my SSN to a doctor and they refused treatment. And more than once. And it had nothing to do with insurance. So don't be too quick to dismiss his premise.
+1 I wish I could mod you up because that is EXACTLY what I was going to say.
Obviously it will not be voluntary, except in the sense that you can choose not to do any online business/purchasing anymore. Once a system catches on, it won't be "optional" anymore.
> "end the golden era of tax-free Internet shopping"
Sorry to break the news, but Internet shopping is *NOT* tax free in most states. Just because the retailer doesn't collect it doesn't mean you don't have to pay it. In most states, you are required, by law, to report all your out of state purchases on your income taxes (usually on a separate form) and pay your state sales tax on those purchases.
The proposed laws are not "raising" taxes- they are enforcing collection by shifting the burden from the consumer to the retailer.
Exactly. Plus I seriously doubt they are going to get anywhere near the performance or efficiency that Linux (Android Linux, other Linuxes) or iOS does on ARM because they are so late to the game. I bet it would take years to tune it to work "well enough", which would STILL be way behind the competition.
So start with no apps, no performance, no efficiency, and probably not much demand. If they can pull off MS-Windows on ARM as a market success, I would be REALLY surprised.
>"Four US senators on Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police," "Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts"
That is not "evading police". If anything it is avoiding entrapment and inconvenience. The practice of putting up a "check point" road block is dubious to say the least. They are subjecting people to search and seizure with ZERO probable cause.
I don't like the idea of people driving drunk, and know it is a big social problem, but you don't just throw everyone's civil liberties out the window and cause major inconveniences as a "solution".
Case in point- I have never consumed alcohol nor any illicit drug in my whole life. I got stuck on my motorcycle in one of those damn checkpoints. It wasted a considerable amount of my time as I had to wait in line in very hot weather in full riding gear, pull over, take off most of my riding gear, go into my pack to get my ID while the officers are looking at me like I am going to pull out a gun, wait, then reassemble everything. I also felt very uncomfortable and threatened by the situation.
UNACCEPTABLE!
>"Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects' fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center."
"Suspects"?? Oh, so they will fingerprint anyone they want because it is easy and faster, and keep that data on file forever? If so, then so much for civil liberties. Every time they search the database, they will be searching your identity along with it. You could end up being a suspect in numerous other "crimes" simply because you touched something near one. This leads to having to "prove your innocence". And that is not even starting to address the issue of errors or frames.
This is evolving into a horrible idea. Fingerprints should only be taken from people arrested as a serious crime suspect, and they should be DELETED (which probably never happens) if the person is not convicted.
Traffic here is a freaking nightmare. So I would be trading one problem for another :(
Thanks for the link!
>"find out how much light pollution there is in their area."
Tons! But I live in a city and there isn't much I can do about it. Mostly poorly designed street lights. Then there are those neighbors that think their property is so much better with a megawatt of flood lights all over. Ug.
But I would GLADLY put up with even more light pollution if it meant less NOISE pollution from damn modified motorcycles, leaf blowers, barking dogs, horns, sirens, and ESPECIALLY those "boom box cars" projecting their damn bass for 1/2 mile in all directions.
I grew up in a wooded suburb with no streetlights... it was so quiet and dark and peaceful. The sky was so pretty and the air so quiet.... Oh the good 'ol days. Didn't know how important those things were until I lost them.
I was just basing in on a statistic from a few Googled searches for March 2011. It is entirely possible it is was wrong.
Either way, it is a huge number for them to ignore. Meanwhile, thankfully, the three other major, most important browsers *ARE* multiplatform:
Firefox
Opera
Chrome
>"Once again, the IE folk have proven they are the coolest group in Redmond!"
I think the cake is more of an insult (as if Mozilla needs congratulations by the all powerful Microsoft). But yes, the IE Folk CAN produce a cross-platform food, just not a cross-platform browser ;) And their current browser doesn't even run on XP- some 40% of the MS-Windows installs! Maybe if they ever do that, Mozilla can send THEM a cake...
Well, can't watch it under Linux anyway, since no Silverlight... so nothing is lost there.
Guess I have to wait for a distro recompile of FF 4.
I am surprised they still offer no 64 bit build download options for Linux and other OS's. I doubt it would make much difference, but it seems odd now that it is 2011...
I disagree strongly with their ruling. If I place a password on my router and use encryption, it is OBVIOUS it is a private network. Breaking into that network for ANY reason is, essentially, trespassing and SHOULD be a criminal offense. It doesn't matter the reason.
Under their logic, I could place locks on my fences on my property, but someone would be allowed to go onto my property, pick the locks, and break into my backyard... but that is OK as long as they wear a blindfold?
Just having a wireless network is NOT an invitation for people to break into it or use it. One could argue that if it is not encrypted, then it is a public network... and I could go for that. But to say it is OK to break encryption (and it doesn't matter how easy that is) to gain access to a private network is just wrong. The encryption is a clear sign that those not given a key are not welcome, and someone using that network is using bandwidth and resources without permission, even if they don't "snoop".
My issue/problem would be with any device in which the user places the front of their hand on a scanner, unless their fingers are hanging off the edge or something.
Even if the device can't scan finger/palm prints, that doesn't mean anything to Joe-blow on the street not familiar with the technology. A layperson would understand, intuitively, that it would probably not be possible for prints to be lifted from something not covered or touched or in proximity to a sensor.
It would be like news photographer pointing a camera at you and then telling you- "Don't worry, I am taking a picture of your ear only, I am not taking a picture of your face". Even if he shows you what is on the screen of his camera, and it looks like only an ear, that doesn't mean that the camera didn't take a full face photo...
In the USA, I have never seen a PIN used with a credit card (and I have been using them quite a bit longer than you ;) ). Check/Debit card yes, credit card no. The most I have seen used was to require you to key in your zip code; which is not much security.
And yes, if you can choose not to use it, of course nobody will- because it is not their money that is at risk... it becomes a "society" problem and we all end up paying for theft with higher prices and fees.
Yes, vein patterns would be a good choice, also. Something that is inside the body- not easily extracted without knowledge/permission, something difficult to replicate or alter, something not "left" all over the place. However, obtaining one would have to be from a part of the body other than the palm, because they could use that opportunity to also obtain a full set of fingerprints (or even palm surface print) without much effort and without the target knowing it. Unless it could be designed such that is it impossible and apparent that it does not include the fingers, the back of the hand would be safer.
Maybe a PIN number for cash withdrawals at an ATM machine, but not a PIN number that is required for purchase payments....
Without a purchasing PIN, anyone can take your card (or often just the number) and buy things without hardly any challenge at all.