You fell for the DfT stats that don't show what they claim to show.
LOL! What? Rather than believing the 5mph figure you pulled out of your arse?
The average speed might be 13 MPH in urban areas, but how much stop/start is there? Strangely that stat is missing from their data, a genuine oversight I'm sure.
There is a lot of data there. What units are you suggesting for "stop/start"? Can you even define it?
Not that it matters. The 13mph average includes all the stopping and starting, on the urban roads, at the worst time of the day. Given that your "rarely over 5mph" claim is impossible.
I suggest that DfT stats are a million times better than listening to the opinions of Jeremy Clarkson, taxi drivers and you.
Now who would you rather trust? Joe Small Company, hosting overseas, or Google or Apple in bed with the NSA?
The blue chip company. Every time. Any company can be spied on by local and foreign spy outfits. But the small company hosting overseas might also be selling your emails to spammers and your credit card number to fraudsters.
Anyone who thinks fragmentation is a problem for Android is not an Android developer
The BBC developers do. As do various others that we can confirm have real apps in development. There's no evidence that the claim that there's no fragmentation problem comes from anyone who actually develops. Just fanboys.
Google has specifically stated on the Google Glass blog that it will not put ads on Glass, in the same post where it was announced that third party apps will not be allowed to show ads on Glass. Google it.
LOL! Google it? You must be joking. Duck Duck Go.
What you don't know is this:
Update: Google confirms that Glass developers will not be able to charge or advertise for their early creations, but that might change in the future. "The API is still in a limited preview," a representative tells The Verge. "Developers are crucial to the future of Glass. The focus during the Explorer Program is on innovation and experimentation, but it's too early to speculate how this will evolve."
Do you believe that the Google search engine will be accessible with Glass. Do you really believe that the ads that are on the service on every other platform will be removed from it on Glass? You're deluding yourself. And they'll find plenty of other opportunities to advertise to you. Just as they have done elsewhere - gmail, etc.
Google IS an advertising company, everything follows from that. Just as Apple is a design company, and everything they do follows from that.
Or to put it another way, fragmentation is an especially big problem for developers. Users just have to put up with an inferior platform. Developers have huge amount of hassle.
e.g. BBC iPlayer requires 3 times as many developers of the Android version of the app as the iPhone requires. And that for an experience that is still significantly worse.
Don't speak too soon. It's not due for release until next year.
Google's business model is advertising. Sometimes they release BETA products that don't have advertising. But if they don't work out a way to bring in the advertising revenue on them, they get dropped.
So either there will be Google ads on Glass, or Glass won't actually last as a product very long.
Actually, I don't expect it to last very long. So maybe you're right and it'll be dropped before the ads arrive.
The projection unit in a typical HUD is an optical collimator setup: a convex lens or concave mirror with a Cathode Ray Tube, light emitting diode, or liquid crystal display at its focus. This setup (a design that has been around since the invention of the reflector sight in 1900) produces an image where the light is parallel i.e. perceived to be at infinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display
And yet the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. With those few with better stats mostly being other countries with strong road safety laws, but lower population.
The US for example is 4 times less safe. Now I don't know what particular evidence they used in the Google Glass, or whether they just went on the very obvious distraction dangers, but the UKs track record for doing the right thing for road safety is very good. And far better then the more anarchic states you will prefer.
Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it's OK to have a mobile phone interface hovering in your eyes. Driving UI good. General phone UI, which may include some driving apps, bad.
The build in HUDs are designed, hardware and software to be aids whilst driving. Google Glass is not. And it's users would be likely to use distracting apps on it, such as messaging.
Anyone can come up with any kind of policy, and what Apple is doing is merely giving lip service to their "policy"
Bullshit. If anyone was "giving lip service" to the policy, WinTek was. Apple does indeed have independent inspectors visiting the plants to find violations of it's policy. And where those are found the are corrected. But of course companies can sometimes hide bad practice for a while.
Bad things happen. And not just in China. Industrial illnesses are far from rare in America itself.
The story here, as usual, is that Apple is no better than anybody else.
If only it was presented like that here, and elsewhere in the media. But it's not. It's presented as if Apple is the only, or at least the worst offender.
And regardless of your Android fanboyism, the picture seems to be that Apple is better than most, BECAUSE it's done everything to follow up all these accusations over the years, and fix what problems have been found.
They did commit suicide at work. One condition of work is living at work. Not near work.
Sorry, no. That's ridiculous. You don't get to discount every US suicide that didn't take place at the workplace, on the basis that the Chinese workers live in dorms near the factory building. You must see that a good proportion of those US suicides were caused by work, or at least work was a significant contributory factor.
After all, one workplace suicide is too many.
Again, that's silly. Everyone dies sometime. And suicide is one way that people go. It can't be erradicated any more than most of the other causes of death can. Reduced sure. But the "one is too many" meme? Silly. Out of more than a million employees of any organisation, no matter how pleasant, some will commit suicide.
And the more honest question we're all asking, or evading, is whether we're comfortable with the consequences of our economic configuration and our consumer behavior.
There's no evidence people having jobs in tech factories increase the suicide rate. The evidence is the opposite. So the one consequence you mention is a falsehood.
Good work on researching numbers. But you missed out a crucial fact that makes your comparison the wrong one, and the general suicide rate the right one.
The Foxconn workers (as is common for factory workers in China) live at the factory. So out of work time suicides are included in the FOxconn suicide figures.
US workers in general live in their own homes. So out of work hours suicides are NOT included in the workplace suicide figures.
It's fair to say that most people commit suicide on their own time. For several obvious reasons.
But Apple's image and brand is of a better, more responsible company -- that's part of the justification for the higher price. "Everyone else does it" might be true, but the statement was "we thought you were better".
"All the false reporting" was one nutjob who was confusing journalism with stage performance.
No, that was just one example. Another is for example the reports of suicides at Foxconn factories. Very widely reported. Except none of the reporters checked the numbers. If you you divide the number of suicides by the number of employees, you get the suicide rate. ANd it turns out that the Foxconn suicide rate from those figures is lower than the suicide rate for not only CHina as a whole, but also it's lower than the US suicide rate.
All in all, the facts are that Apple enforces higher ethical standards on it's suppliers than any other tech company. Yet because anything Apple is newsworthy, we have a mix of muckraking and click-baiting claiming things that are the opposite of the truth.
And I'm sorry, but there's nothing about "Child Labour Watch" that raises it above the rest of the noise.
Neither the iPad Mini nor the iPad fully function as a mobile phone.
They don't have to. The iPhone is for that.
There is no one mobile device, from any manufacturer, with any OS, that is ideal for all uses. They are all compromises. You pick the device for the particular set of compromises you want. Or you buy (and carry) more than one.
Slashdot Mirror
And as if by magic, a few minutes later, yet another example appears on the Slashdot Front Page.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/08/03/1847227/why-pbs-wont-do-android
You fell for the DfT stats that don't show what they claim to show.
LOL! What? Rather than believing the 5mph figure you pulled out of your arse?
The average speed might be 13 MPH in urban areas, but how much stop/start is there? Strangely that stat is missing from their data, a genuine oversight I'm sure.
There is a lot of data there. What units are you suggesting for "stop/start"? Can you even define it?
Not that it matters. The 13mph average includes all the stopping and starting, on the urban roads, at the worst time of the day. Given that your "rarely over 5mph" claim is impossible.
I suggest that DfT stats are a million times better than listening to the opinions of Jeremy Clarkson, taxi drivers and you.
Now who would you rather trust? Joe Small Company, hosting overseas, or Google or Apple in bed with the NSA?
The blue chip company. Every time. Any company can be spied on by local and foreign spy outfits. But the small company hosting overseas might also be selling your emails to spammers and your credit card number to fraudsters.
So what you're saying is the BBC employed poor developers and augmented them with more poor developers?
No that's the excuse you're trying to make, based on nothing.
The BBCs reason is very specifically the fragmentation of the Android platform. Both OS and devices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20754182
Anyone who thinks fragmentation is a problem for Android is not an Android developer
The BBC developers do. As do various others that we can confirm have real apps in development. There's no evidence that the claim that there's no fragmentation problem comes from anyone who actually develops. Just fanboys.
It's hardly the first example we've had on Slashdot. Open your eyes. Or maybe you're just a Fandroid, and so ignore them.
Google has specifically stated on the Google Glass blog that it will not put ads on Glass, in the same post where it was announced that third party apps will not be allowed to show ads on Glass. Google it.
LOL! Google it? You must be joking. Duck Duck Go.
What you don't know is this:
Update: Google confirms that Glass developers will not be able to charge or advertise for their early creations, but that might change in the future. "The API is still in a limited preview," a representative tells The Verge. "Developers are crucial to the future of Glass. The focus during the Explorer Program is on innovation and experimentation, but it's too early to speculate how this will evolve."
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4228962/google-glass-mirror-api-documentation
Google isn't even promising that third parties won't be allowed to advertise in future, let alone themselves.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4228962/google-glass-mirror-api-documentation
Do you believe that the Google search engine will be accessible with Glass. Do you really believe that the ads that are on the service on every other platform will be removed from it on Glass? You're deluding yourself. And they'll find plenty of other opportunities to advertise to you. Just as they have done elsewhere - gmail, etc.
Google IS an advertising company, everything follows from that. Just as Apple is a design company, and everything they do follows from that.
Or to put it another way, fragmentation is an especially big problem for developers. Users just have to put up with an inferior platform. Developers have huge amount of hassle.
e.g. BBC iPlayer requires 3 times as many developers of the Android version of the app as the iPhone requires. And that for an experience that is still significantly worse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Video-on-Android-Devices-Update
Finnally! Google copies Find My iPhone.
Maybe nobody's forgiven him for Arthur Dent.
Don't speak too soon. It's not due for release until next year.
Google's business model is advertising. Sometimes they release BETA products that don't have advertising. But if they don't work out a way to bring in the advertising revenue on them, they get dropped.
So either there will be Google ads on Glass, or Glass won't actually last as a product very long.
Actually, I don't expect it to last very long. So maybe you're right and it'll be dropped before the ads arrive.
The UK is only safe because traffic jams and constant badly-planned roadworks make sure cars rarely get above 5 MPH.
This isn't Top Gear you know. You don't actually get away with dumb driving rant claims here without being corrected.
o 52% of vehicles on motorways exceed 70mph.
o The average traffic speed over the whole network rose from 55.3 mph in 2006 to 55.9 mph in 2008, an increase of 0.6 per cent.
o The average speed of vehicles travelling on key urban roads in England at the height of the school day morning peak is 13 mph;
http://www.acttravelwise.org/news/1542
Of course they've banned third parties. Google's own advertising is the sole reason for the device.
Huh?
The projection unit in a typical HUD is an optical collimator setup: a convex lens or concave mirror with a Cathode Ray Tube, light emitting diode, or liquid crystal display at its focus. This setup (a design that has been around since the invention of the reflector sight in 1900) produces an image where the light is parallel i.e. perceived to be at infinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display
It's not magic, just a lens.
And yet the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. With those few with better stats mostly being other countries with strong road safety laws, but lower population.
The US for example is 4 times less safe. Now I don't know what particular evidence they used in the Google Glass, or whether they just went on the very obvious distraction dangers, but the UKs track record for doing the right thing for road safety is very good. And far better then the more anarchic states you will prefer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.
a) Google glass already has ads. Another reason to ban it whilst driving.
b) Just as the UK has banned Google Glass whilst driving, I'd expect them to ban adverts on HUDs. Other jurisdictions may vary...
Maybe the Darwin effect will see Android users genes removed from the gene pool.
Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it's OK to have a mobile phone interface hovering in your eyes. Driving UI good. General phone UI, which may include some driving apps, bad.
The build in HUDs are designed, hardware and software to be aids whilst driving. Google Glass is not. And it's users would be likely to use distracting apps on it, such as messaging.
Anyone can come up with any kind of policy, and what Apple is doing is merely giving lip service to their "policy"
Bullshit. If anyone was "giving lip service" to the policy, WinTek was. Apple does indeed have independent inspectors visiting the plants to find violations of it's policy. And where those are found the are corrected. But of course companies can sometimes hide bad practice for a while.
Bad things happen. And not just in China. Industrial illnesses are far from rare in America itself.
The story here, as usual, is that Apple is no better than anybody else.
If only it was presented like that here, and elsewhere in the media. But it's not. It's presented as if Apple is the only, or at least the worst offender.
And regardless of your Android fanboyism, the picture seems to be that Apple is better than most, BECAUSE it's done everything to follow up all these accusations over the years, and fix what problems have been found.
They did commit suicide at work. One condition of work is living at work. Not near work.
Sorry, no. That's ridiculous. You don't get to discount every US suicide that didn't take place at the workplace, on the basis that the Chinese workers live in dorms near the factory building. You must see that a good proportion of those US suicides were caused by work, or at least work was a significant contributory factor.
After all, one workplace suicide is too many.
Again, that's silly. Everyone dies sometime. And suicide is one way that people go. It can't be erradicated any more than most of the other causes of death can. Reduced sure. But the "one is too many" meme? Silly. Out of more than a million employees of any organisation, no matter how pleasant, some will commit suicide.
And the more honest question we're all asking, or evading, is whether we're comfortable with the consequences of our economic configuration and our consumer behavior.
There's no evidence people having jobs in tech factories increase the suicide rate. The evidence is the opposite. So the one consequence you mention is a falsehood.
Good work on researching numbers. But you missed out a crucial fact that makes your comparison the wrong one, and the general suicide rate the right one.
The Foxconn workers (as is common for factory workers in China) live at the factory. So out of work time suicides are included in the FOxconn suicide figures.
US workers in general live in their own homes. So out of work hours suicides are NOT included in the workplace suicide figures.
It's fair to say that most people commit suicide on their own time. For several obvious reasons.
But Apple's image and brand is of a better, more responsible company -- that's part of the justification for the higher price. "Everyone else does it" might be true, but the statement was "we thought you were better".
Apple ARE better.
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/accountability.html
"All the false reporting" was one nutjob who was confusing journalism with stage performance.
No, that was just one example. Another is for example the reports of suicides at Foxconn factories. Very widely reported. Except none of the reporters checked the numbers. If you you divide the number of suicides by the number of employees, you get the suicide rate. ANd it turns out that the Foxconn suicide rate from those figures is lower than the suicide rate for not only CHina as a whole, but also it's lower than the US suicide rate.
All in all, the facts are that Apple enforces higher ethical standards on it's suppliers than any other tech company. Yet because anything Apple is newsworthy, we have a mix of muckraking and click-baiting claiming things that are the opposite of the truth.
And I'm sorry, but there's nothing about "Child Labour Watch" that raises it above the rest of the noise.
Neither the iPad Mini nor the iPad fully function as a mobile phone.
They don't have to. The iPhone is for that.
There is no one mobile device, from any manufacturer, with any OS, that is ideal for all uses. They are all compromises. You pick the device for the particular set of compromises you want. Or you buy (and carry) more than one.