A removable battery adds more than one-hundredth of an inch to the thickness. As I said in the post you are replying to, Samsung's battery is sitting in a phone that is larger in all directions. Not much in thickness, but significantly bigger in the other two dimensions.
Volume matters, not just thickness. And a hard case for the battery adds in all 3 dimensions.
And as I mentioned elsewhere a sealed battery makes for a design with more rigidity.
The same goes for iPads and MacBooks. Just at a larger scale.
And I don't accept that there's much environmental impact. People tend to move on to a new model before the battery reaches it's end of life anyway. And for those that don't, battery replacements are available.
Apple's products are designed to be the best designed they can be, not to be prematurely obsolescent. If you don't realise that, you don't understand Apple's business model.
You've clearly never observed most aggressive species in action. There is never more than one male, or one alpha, in any pack. Those who do not subordinate must leave or are killed.
And we tend to have one president, king, CEO etc. The fact that most organisations have a singular ultimate leader doesn't mean they don't cooperate.
PalmOS was a menu driven UI with scrolling navigation via scroll bars. Effectively a cut down desktop UI. And it had a simplified character recognition system for input.
iOS was different on all these key interactions. It's certainly not a clone of PalmOS.
If however you want to say there was still enough in common, then you'd have to admit that Apple got there before Palm with the Newton MessagePad.
And somehow if Android had come out as a BlackBerry clone, that wouldn't have been a problem? Apparently, cloning is only a problem when the thing cloned is yours (and yours doesn't happen to be a clone of something else).
Naturally. Why should Apple care if Google rips off Blackberry? Blackberry doesn't care that Google ripped off Apple.
Android and iOS have nothing in common other than the fact that both combine similar bits of existing technology into a package with similar functionality.
Android as it ended up being released was very obviously a clone of iOS. There's no point denying it.
It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation.
And yet every year we have phones that are a substantial improvement over last years. Samsung and Apple leapfrogging each other with every release. Hell this years phones are as powerful as laptops of just 3 years ago. The rate of improvement is staggering.
You might miss it though if you are reading tech sites every day and expect a groundbreaking innovation every week.
and you somehow manage to say that the only thing the US has is lawyers? Really?
No. That's not the point he made. Right or wrong, his point was that lawyers were governing the US and for their own ends. Not that there was nothing other than lawyers.
Another exception is people using iPhones or Macs talking to others also using Apple devices. They tend to use Facetime.
They tend to have Skype as backup for talking to people that don't have Apple devices. But Facetime tends to give better quality streaming than Skype, so it's the first choice.
Compared to the iPhone, not much. But of course battery size depends on volume, and the other two dimensions of the Samsung Galaxy are significantly bigger.
For a given width and height and battery capacity though, a phone with a removable battery will have to be thicker than one without.
No it bloody isn't. If you've been hired as a programer, your job is to program. Read your contract.
If you think programming is all coding and no meetings, you're not an employed programmer.
And if you read your contract you'll usually find some clause along the lines of "and other tasks that may be assigned from time to time." Employers write the contracts,and they don't do them in a way that restricts what they can reasonably ask you to do. And meetings are certainly a reasonable task for all employees.
I consider it disrespectful to make me waste an hour of my time because you feel the need to show your self-importance by calling unnecessary meetings and forcing people who have no need to go to them to be there.
It's not your time. You sold it to an employer. That means he gets to decide what's a waste of that time and what is not. If you don't like it find another employer.
Yes business meetings can be very boring. Everyone of every age knows this. And yet people are being paid to do a job, and that sometimes includes meetings.
This already happens in any meeting that doesn't ban laptops. Is the exact same thing to be answering emails as sending texts, assuming you at least have the new text chime turned off.
It's pretty obvious when someone is typing into a laptop in response to things that are being mentioned in a meeting, or simply using the laptop for other purposes, such as general email. The former is OK. The latter is very rude, and should be rebuked.
The only risk management that is mentioned is ways of avoiding getting caught by the cops, and a redundancy in GPS. (And yet he still turned the wrong way down a one way street because (one of) the GPSs told him to.)
It does mention doing it on a quiet weekend, with moonlight, but it's not clear that was for safety as much as being conducive to getting the quickest time.
There's no mention of things like roll-bars, helmets, fire extinguishers etc. Or anything for safety. Just the extra gas tanks that made the car more unsafe.
No hint whatsoever in fact that the guy isn't a Darwin award contender, that was lucky this time.
Because, contrary to popular belief, code written to the ARM64 (ARMv8) architecture is significantly faster than code written for Armv7 and earlier. That's the big benefit right now.
Plus it means the changes in the OS and Apps have time to mature before processes with >4GB requirements are needed.
You are assuming that there is a detailed (and accurate) functional spec, design spec, and that the code is organized and well-documented
No I'm not assuming any of that. That stuff may help, if it's of good quality, but is certainly not necessary.
Take GNU/Linux for a publicly visible example. It has many teams and individuals working on different parts of the system, with relatively little insight as to what others are working on, and is lacking in quite a lot on your list.
If this is truly a case of fixing what's there rather than starting again, all you really need is source control, a defect management system which allows triage and a consensus on what constitutes a fix (if any) to a defect report, and people skilled in the various technologies that have been used to make the system.
Slashdot Mirror
A removable battery adds more than one-hundredth of an inch to the thickness. As I said in the post you are replying to, Samsung's battery is sitting in a phone that is larger in all directions. Not much in thickness, but significantly bigger in the other two dimensions.
Volume matters, not just thickness. And a hard case for the battery adds in all 3 dimensions.
And as I mentioned elsewhere a sealed battery makes for a design with more rigidity.
The same goes for iPads and MacBooks. Just at a larger scale.
And I don't accept that there's much environmental impact. People tend to move on to a new model before the battery reaches it's end of life anyway. And for those that don't, battery replacements are available.
Apple's products are designed to be the best designed they can be, not to be prematurely obsolescent. If you don't realise that, you don't understand Apple's business model.
"Response to" or "copy of" fit rather better than "attack against". It's reactive, not aggressive.
You've clearly never observed most aggressive species in action. There is never more than one male, or one alpha, in any pack. Those who do not subordinate must leave or are killed.
And we tend to have one president, king, CEO etc. The fact that most organisations have a singular ultimate leader doesn't mean they don't cooperate.
Cooperation is a concept developed BY society to achieve a greater goal than an individual could on their own.
Categorically not true. Apes cooperate.
Now you may say: well apes have societies themselves. But then you are just saying that cooperation implies society. Which is tautologous.
And it certainly doesn't say that competition is somehow more natural to the higher orders than cooperation.
PalmOS was a menu driven UI with scrolling navigation via scroll bars. Effectively a cut down desktop UI. And it had a simplified character recognition system for input.
iOS was different on all these key interactions. It's certainly not a clone of PalmOS.
If however you want to say there was still enough in common, then you'd have to admit that Apple got there before Palm with the Newton MessagePad.
And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple.
A system is the sum of it's parts. Nothing like the iPhone existed previously, even if many of it's individual parts did.
Android certainly did copy that system.
Youdr post is another example of fandroid derangement syndrome.
And somehow if Android had come out as a BlackBerry clone, that wouldn't have been a problem? Apparently, cloning is only a problem when the thing cloned is yours (and yours doesn't happen to be a clone of something else).
Naturally. Why should Apple care if Google rips off Blackberry? Blackberry doesn't care that Google ripped off Apple.
Android and iOS have nothing in common other than the fact that both combine similar bits of existing technology into a package with similar functionality.
Android as it ended up being released was very obviously a clone of iOS. There's no point denying it.
When will this stupid form of argument die?
Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Indeed virtually all patents include a list of prior art within the patent.
So long as the patent adds something new, it's allowed to build on the shoulders of previous patents.
It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation.
And yet every year we have phones that are a substantial improvement over last years. Samsung and Apple leapfrogging each other with every release. Hell this years phones are as powerful as laptops of just 3 years ago. The rate of improvement is staggering.
You might miss it though if you are reading tech sites every day and expect a groundbreaking innovation every week.
They supplied Rockstar with the patents for the sole reason of sueing other companies. that's the only reason rockstar exists.
No. They set up a joint venture to bid for the Nortel patents. And they won. The individual companies in the joint venture never owned the patents.
that's the only reason rockstar exists.
No. It also means that the companies in the joint venture can legally use the technology in those patents, without fear of being sued.
Decide yourself which is the primary purpose. But they are both significant purposes.
and you somehow manage to say that the only thing the US has is lawyers? Really?
No. That's not the point he made. Right or wrong, his point was that lawyers were governing the US and for their own ends. Not that there was nothing other than lawyers.
The funny part about that is that in addition to not having patents anybody wants to license, the patents Apple does have, they refuse to license.
If no one wants to license them, then how do you know Apple has refused to license them. Huh?
Of course Apple has patents that other companies want to license. Some Apple will license. Some they won't. Same as everyone else.
Another exception is people using iPhones or Macs talking to others also using Apple devices. They tend to use Facetime.
They tend to have Skype as backup for talking to people that don't have Apple devices. But Facetime tends to give better quality streaming than Skype, so it's the first choice.
Compared to the iPhone, not much. But of course battery size depends on volume, and the other two dimensions of the Samsung Galaxy are significantly bigger.
For a given width and height and battery capacity though, a phone with a removable battery will have to be thicker than one without.
No it bloody isn't. If you've been hired as a programer, your job is to program. Read your contract.
If you think programming is all coding and no meetings, you're not an employed programmer.
And if you read your contract you'll usually find some clause along the lines of "and other tasks that may be assigned from time to time." Employers write the contracts,and they don't do them in a way that restricts what they can reasonably ask you to do. And meetings are certainly a reasonable task for all employees.
I consider it disrespectful to make me waste an hour of my time because you feel the need to show your self-importance by calling unnecessary meetings and forcing people who have no need to go to them to be there.
It's not your time. You sold it to an employer. That means he gets to decide what's a waste of that time and what is not. If you don't like it find another employer.
Yes business meetings can be very boring. Everyone of every age knows this. And yet people are being paid to do a job, and that sometimes includes meetings.
This already happens in any meeting that doesn't ban laptops. Is the exact same thing to be answering emails as sending texts, assuming you at least have the new text chime turned off.
It's pretty obvious when someone is typing into a laptop in response to things that are being mentioned in a meeting, or simply using the laptop for other purposes, such as general email. The former is OK. The latter is very rude, and should be rebuked.
The only risk management that is mentioned is ways of avoiding getting caught by the cops, and a redundancy in GPS. (And yet he still turned the wrong way down a one way street because (one of) the GPSs told him to.)
It does mention doing it on a quiet weekend, with moonlight, but it's not clear that was for safety as much as being conducive to getting the quickest time.
There's no mention of things like roll-bars, helmets, fire extinguishers etc. Or anything for safety. Just the extra gas tanks that made the car more unsafe.
No hint whatsoever in fact that the guy isn't a Darwin award contender, that was lucky this time.
If one teams changes one of the parts that another team uses that can lead to more screw ups.
There are plenty of ways of managing this. Coding by contract. Public/Private. Published APIs. Project managers. etc.
Starting over is a better option in this case.
.
That's very rarely true. Many is the company that has failed because they decided to rewrite their software from scratch.
Big mistake. Starting from scratch is rarely the best course of action.
For example:
"Netscape made the "single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make" by deciding to rewrite their code from scratch."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000027.html
Then "The Mythical Man Month" does indeed apply.
However, it's a rare case when the best answer truly is to start from scratch. Mostly starting from scratch is a rookie mistake.
That's why I said "If it's a case of fixing defects rather than re-architecting from scratch".
Because, contrary to popular belief, code written to the ARM64 (ARMv8) architecture is significantly faster than code written for Armv7 and earlier. That's the big benefit right now.
Plus it means the changes in the OS and Apps have time to mature before processes with >4GB requirements are needed.
You are assuming that there is a detailed (and accurate) functional spec, design spec, and that the code is organized and well-documented
No I'm not assuming any of that. That stuff may help, if it's of good quality, but is certainly not necessary.
Take GNU/Linux for a publicly visible example. It has many teams and individuals working on different parts of the system, with relatively little insight as to what others are working on, and is lacking in quite a lot on your list.
If this is truly a case of fixing what's there rather than starting again, all you really need is source control, a defect management system which allows triage and a consensus on what constitutes a fix (if any) to a defect report, and people skilled in the various technologies that have been used to make the system.