It's still 56x slower than my class 10 samsung micro SD card that's in my tablet (it's 70MB/s read speed). What a great improvement in technology!
You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud. Thats the difference between file system saving and background syncing.
Every iphone for a 3 year period had a screen that was roughly twice as likely to break as the one before it accordingly to actual phone insurance companies.
"A" screen? No, you're confused. The iPhone 4 has a glass back. Two sides that are glass accounts for the increase in dropping causing cracked glass. The screens themselves have not got more prone to cracking.
And in drop tests iPhones were far less breakable than Samsung Galaxy's.
The newest ipad has been officially rated heavier, hotter, and with a worse battery life than the one before it after they improved something that nobody was complaining about (the graphics power and screen res).
Yes, they vastly improved the graphics, to the extent of 4 times as many pixels. The best on the market. And that needs more battery power. Your premise is that if you assess that people aren't complaining about a particular thing it shouldn't be improved? The iPad 3 flew off the shelves. That's the fundamental reason why a year later (with no new iPad released) iPad sales are down.
The antenna problem is yesterdays news. It affected the iPhone 4.
The purple flare is not an issue. No cameraphone camera is flawless. They all have their own artifacts that you will get if you look for them.
These issues are well known BECAUSE they happen on iPhones. And people care about iPhones. That makes them newsworthy. Every other phone manufacturer also has issues with their phones. But they don't make the mainstream geek news because hardly anyone cares.
Though you can use them for some work functions they are not work machines.
Tell that to pilots and doctors for example.
If your work consists mostly of sitting at a desk doing keyboardy things, then of course a tablet isn't much good for you. But not everyone's work is like that.
Now think of the iFad: one rarely sees Android tablets out there, even though they are as good as iPads. In fact, most people seem to prefer Phablets.
The Android tablets that are sold, especially the "phablets" as sold because they are cheap. And cheap mostly means terrible. They end up unused, and THAT'S why you don't see them out there.
More likely market saturation rather than competition. Basically at this point most people who want a tablet have one.
In 3 years? Don't think so. The truth is that the year ago quarter was boosted by the new Retina iPad 3. And the 6 month ago quarter was boosted by the iPad Mini. This last quarter didn't have a new iPad, so of course it isn't one of the peak sales quarters.
The next iPad will come out this quarter or next, with iOS 7, and once again it'll be a record quarter for iPads.
Does that mean you can't think of one? When I give you a very well known one that you yourself come into contact with are you going to stop arguing, or are you going to continue regardless?
Of course statistics works that way. Statistics gives probabilities for all sorts of events that haven't yet happened, or at least been recorded happening A "On in X year occurrence" is just a way of expressing a probability.
Its fairly well documented that whilst lighting provides an increased sense of security, it frequently decreases security in real terms by creating deep shadows.
Possibly. But I imagine the motion detector type described tends to put off people that are prowling. There's plenty of other houses they can go to where their presence won't be as obvious.
On the other hand, they tend to decrease the feeling of security of the householder, every time a cat lights it up.
Well it's certainly true of different languages. It's polite to try and speak the language of the country you are visiting. So why not dialects as well?
The definitions are explicit. Artificial means created by man. Natural means not created by man. Regardless of your previous thoughts on what those words mean.
Is a man an animal? Yes. Is man natural? Sure. But what he creates is not natural, it's artificial. By definition.
There are many, many story formula books, either for storytelling generally, or for movies in particular. They all disagree on the number of plot types there are.
Fundamentally it's a categorisation task. A process of making a list of existing stories and putting them into groups. It's entirely subjective how you want to split them.
So either you didn't read TFA, or you wanted to deliberately miss its message to post your own rant.
Or he read both books and disagrees with the article. I have read both, and I'm with him that they aren't fundamentally that different. And there have been plenty more such screenplay formula books. Snyder's a more to the point, but not a fundamentally different beast. Not different enough to have fundamentally changed the amount to which the Hollywood movie industry is formulaic. It's been just as formulaic for most of it's history.
arÂtiÂfiÂcial Adjective "Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural: "artificial light"." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+artificial
First research what words actually mean. Only then try to tell others what they mean.
Facts strongly suggest that without nuclear weapons we would have had another global conflagration and that the presence of nuclear weapons kept the war "cold".
What facts? Where would that war have started and how would it have escalated to a wide enough extent to call it a world war?
The mark of a good scientist is the ability to process new data, even when contrary to long held beliefs and adjust their opinions accordingly.
What you are claiming has nothing to do with science. You're simply repeating some people's opinions of cause and effect.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confused between save and load.
Save is instantaneous. Load is instantaneous. Save on one device and then load on another isn't. It's good engineering, not magic.
It's no joke. What I said is absolutely correct.
It's still 56x slower than my class 10 samsung micro SD card that's in my tablet (it's 70MB/s read speed). What a great improvement in technology!
You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud. Thats the difference between file system saving and background syncing.
Every iphone for a 3 year period had a screen that was roughly twice as likely to break as the one before it accordingly to actual phone insurance companies.
"A" screen? No, you're confused. The iPhone 4 has a glass back. Two sides that are glass accounts for the increase in dropping causing cracked glass. The screens themselves have not got more prone to cracking.
And in drop tests iPhones were far less breakable than Samsung Galaxy's.
The newest ipad has been officially rated heavier, hotter, and with a worse battery life than the one before it after they improved something that nobody was complaining about (the graphics power and screen res).
Yes, they vastly improved the graphics, to the extent of 4 times as many pixels. The best on the market. And that needs more battery power. Your premise is that if you assess that people aren't complaining about a particular thing it shouldn't be improved? The iPad 3 flew off the shelves. That's the fundamental reason why a year later (with no new iPad released) iPad sales are down.
The antenna problem is yesterdays news. It affected the iPhone 4.
The purple flare is not an issue. No cameraphone camera is flawless. They all have their own artifacts that you will get if you look for them.
These issues are well known BECAUSE they happen on iPhones. And people care about iPhones. That makes them newsworthy. Every other phone manufacturer also has issues with their phones. But they don't make the mainstream geek news because hardly anyone cares.
An awful lot of those PCs are bought by businesses and other organizations.
Though you can use them for some work functions they are not work machines.
Tell that to pilots and doctors for example.
If your work consists mostly of sitting at a desk doing keyboardy things, then of course a tablet isn't much good for you. But not everyone's work is like that.
Now think of the iFad: one rarely sees Android tablets out there, even though they are as good as iPads. In fact, most people seem to prefer Phablets.
The Android tablets that are sold, especially the "phablets" as sold because they are cheap. And cheap mostly means terrible. They end up unused, and THAT'S why you don't see them out there.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/usage-study-shows-ipad-proves-to-be-the-one-tablet-to-rule-them-all/story-e6frfro0-1226684205587
More likely market saturation rather than competition. Basically at this point most people who want a tablet have one.
In 3 years? Don't think so. The truth is that the year ago quarter was boosted by the new Retina iPad 3. And the 6 month ago quarter was boosted by the iPad Mini. This last quarter didn't have a new iPad, so of course it isn't one of the peak sales quarters.
The next iPad will come out this quarter or next, with iOS 7, and once again it'll be a record quarter for iPads.
Defiance against a dictionary?
We're not talking the gubmint, the cops or the teacher telling you what to do here.
Yes, part of growing up does mean accepting dictionary definitions. Along with the other ways you are not always right.
Does that mean you can't think of one? When I give you a very well known one that you yourself come into contact with are you going to stop arguing, or are you going to continue regardless?
Of course statistics works that way. Statistics gives probabilities for all sorts of events that haven't yet happened, or at least been recorded happening A "On in X year occurrence" is just a way of expressing a probability.
Or maybe they and you do.
You're arguing against the dictionary definition.
Maybe it's time to reassess the present day definition.
Maybe it's time you accepted that you don't always get things right. It's all part of growing up.
Its fairly well documented that whilst lighting provides an increased sense of security, it frequently decreases security in real terms by creating deep shadows.
Possibly. But I imagine the motion detector type described tends to put off people that are prowling. There's plenty of other houses they can go to where their presence won't be as obvious.
On the other hand, they tend to decrease the feeling of security of the householder, every time a cat lights it up.
I sincerely hope you found out about fannies and faggots in an easier way.
But you can't say someone got the statistics wrong because you are unable to count something. Which was your original line or reasoning.
It wouldn't go over well with a British cop either. Neither sense is acceptable.
Well it's certainly true of different languages. It's polite to try and speak the language of the country you are visiting. So why not dialects as well?
Look you got the definition of words wrong. No matter what contortions you try, you're not going to somehow change that to you being right.
The definitions are explicit. Artificial means created by man. Natural means not created by man. Regardless of your previous thoughts on what those words mean.
Is a man an animal? Yes. Is man natural? Sure. But what he creates is not natural, it's artificial. By definition.
A security researcher claims it was him, and he meant well.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/07/22/researcher-claims-he-told-apple-of-developer-center-vulnerability-but-didnt-maliciously-steal-data/
There are many, many story formula books, either for storytelling generally, or for movies in particular. They all disagree on the number of plot types there are.
Fundamentally it's a categorisation task. A process of making a list of existing stories and putting them into groups. It's entirely subjective how you want to split them.
So either you didn't read TFA, or you wanted to deliberately miss its message to post your own rant.
Or he read both books and disagrees with the article. I have read both, and I'm with him that they aren't fundamentally that different. And there have been plenty more such screenplay formula books. Snyder's a more to the point, but not a fundamentally different beast. Not different enough to have fundamentally changed the amount to which the Hollywood movie industry is formulaic. It's been just as formulaic for most of it's history.
natÂuÂral
Adjective
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+natural
arÂtiÂfiÂcial
Adjective
"Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural: "artificial light"."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+artificial
First research what words actually mean. Only then try to tell others what they mean.
Facts strongly suggest that without nuclear weapons we would have had another global conflagration and that the presence of nuclear weapons kept the war "cold".
What facts? Where would that war have started and how would it have escalated to a wide enough extent to call it a world war?
The mark of a good scientist is the ability to process new data, even when contrary to long held beliefs and adjust their opinions accordingly.
What you are claiming has nothing to do with science. You're simply repeating some people's opinions of cause and effect.
It doesn't "fail arithmetic". Are you still in school or something?