You only need to be able to reach the dialer buttons which only occupy the lower half of the screen at full size, and only one corner of the lower half of the screen when you enable the one-handed operation mode for people with smaller hands.
You missed the bit about the tips of the fingers holding the far edge. If it's wider than the distance between the top joint of your fingers and the crook of your thumb, then you are not gripping it. And when you lift your thumb to move from one button to another on the screen, the device would fall out of your hand.
I accept that the literal definition of a phone involves voice telephony. What I'm saying is it's a failure of a mobile phone - a bad mobile phone - if you can't hold it and operate it in one hand.
If you're walking with a case, or strap hanging in a train, you should be able to take your phone out and call someone, without the likelyhood of the phone falling out of your hand.
Once again, I'm not saying failing that makes it a bad device. It might be fine as a mini-tablet. But it's not a good phone.
Defense also looks like trying to get your own data to see what the other side found out from their hacks of you.
It might involve hiring outside hackers to probe your own defenses and report any breaches they find. But hacking into some foreign government computers to see what they have in case anything of what they have is yours - that's attack, not defense.
Or would you just close your eyes and plug your ears, build the biggest wall you can, and call that defense?
Don't confuse two different issues. 1) What I, you, they or anyone else WOULD do or SHOULD do. 2) The nature of the action. (In this case attack or defense).
Just because you may think your side should do something does not make it defense.
Besides, China's hacking has been very much in the news lately. How do you know this isn't just China's PR push?
How do you know China's hacking being in the news isn't just the USA's PR push?
What's the biggest example of cyber hacking by a government in recent years? Stuxnet. A worm designed to sabotage Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges. Who's responsible? The USA and/or Israel. And it's attack. It's not defence, even if you happen to be on the side of the USA and Israel.
Sure, it's the opposite of the classic formulation. I'm not sure if it officially counts as a tragedy of the commons, but that seemed like the best way of describing it. Maybe there's another term for it?
Since when do we determine what a phone is based on physical dimensions?
Since we were commenting on a story which asked the question: "Smartphone Screen Real Estate: How Big Is Big Enough?"
Just because you or me may not want a Note doesn't make it bad (my Nexus 4 is probably as big as I'd want to get) - it just makes us not the target customer.
As I said, it might be a fine tablet. But but IMHO it fails as a phone if it's too big (or your hands are too small) to operate one handed. As per the test I outlined.
Self defense? He started it! No, he started it! No I didn't! Yes you did! It's the stuff of children.
In Britain, we used to have a "War Office". in 1947 they changed that to "The Ministry of Defence". They still do the same thing. It's words. Propaganda.
If you honestly think when China does hacking it's attack, and when the USA does it it's defense, you've fallen for the propaganda.
Do you know what real defense to hacking looks like? It looks like like patching up vulnerabilities. It looks like using better encryption. It looks like not connecting things to the internet that don't need to be connected to it.
That's true. But it only works as an argument for a monopoly supplier. In a free market, you have a tragedy of the commons scenario, where all can see that 100% coverage would be advantageous to the technology, but none of the individual suppliers wants to be the one to put the money into those rural areas.
It MIGHT work, if there's a limited number of suppliers and they successfully negotiate to split the costs. But there's nothing in free market pressures that make that likely. The instinct to compete is usually stronger than the instinct to grow the market for everyone. Usually it takes government intervention to solve these tragedy of the commons issues.
Jobs knew how to manipulate people into wanting what he had to sell them. He was an excellent salesman.
If you want to understand why Jobs products are so successful you need to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The key to understanding the philosophy, why it works, and why few techies understand it is right in there.
E.g. ever wonder how long ago slapping a woman was acceptable as a movie scene? Do you remember "The Man with the Golden Gun" (1974)? What about the "Airplane!" (1980)?)
Who says it ever became unacceptable in a movie? Can a man be slapped? If yes, why not a woman? Not allowing slapping of women would be sexist.
Heck you're trying to say that shooting of men is acceptable, but slapping of women isn't? How does that work?
Slapping women might be unacceptable in real life. (Just as any form of violence to a woman or man is.) But movies are for playing out scenarios that are unacceptable or for other reasons don't happen in real life.
I hope you place it with the screen towards you, at least. I don't know where they place the antennas nowadays, but I wouldn't want a device emitting microwaves onto my lungs/heart... nor my genitals, either.
It's OK, I always keep a pack of cigarettes between the phone and my chest.
But is it a phone? Where do we draw the line between phone and tablet. I suggest this:
Can you operate the Galaxy Note with one hand without it feeling like you're juggling? i.e. Resting on your hand, with the tips of your fingers holding the far edge, can your thumb reach the furthest corners of the screen to press a button. If not, it's failed as a phone.
I'm not saying other materials aren't stronger than steel. Obviously carbon fibre is, and is already used in car manufacture. But strong materials rely on specific crystalisation structures (steel) or fibres (carbon fibre).And those don't tend to magically come about from melting some goo in the nozzle of a 3D printer. 3D printed stuff is fragile.
Heck if their process were really stronger than steel, why are they making the chassis out of steel? Duh!
How did you do on all the other fashionable wearable electronics investments you've made over the years? Remember all those jackets that were made to be iPod compatible. Controls on the sleeves, earphone buds in the collar. They were a huge success. Not.
This is worse than 1984. In Oceania, one at least knew where the cameras were and could at-least try to avoid them.
You're right. Perhaps we should boycott them. Refuse to interact with anyone in front of use that's wearing one, unless they take it off. Refuse to accept phone calls from anyone that's using one as their phone etc. Just make the damn things unacceptable right from the start.
What sort of an idiot thinks that lying to Microsoft is in any way reprehensible? Look inward? Tar with the same brush? Grow up.
Microsoft's not a person, despite what the US law might say. It's an inhuman corporation, and one which like every other corporation makes a regular practice of deceiving people.
Oh, I understand exactly what the OSS community means by it. I just don't buy it.
If I buy a toaster, I don't expect to get the circuit diagrams and plans to make my own variants on that toaster. And lets face it almost nobody would be interested in those plans anyway.
And then you compare it with Italian fascism? How utterly ridiculous. And almost a Godwin.
Slashdot Mirror
Uncertainty of that sort is probably more distressing than the the additional comfort is worth.
Is English not your first language? You do realise "to try him" means to bring him to trial. And that the "immediate steps" part also relates to that.
a computer OS which is mainly used on laptops, but where there is no toggle for whether closing the screen puts the laptop into sleep mode.
It's the same with my fridge. Stupid Electrolux not having a toggle for having the light on when the door is closed.
and the people who buy the $999 Facebook machines adapt their usage patterns to their computers, not vice versa.
Laptop open = I'm clothed, shaved, my mistress isn't there, I've cleaned away last nights pizza. I'm ready for video chat.
Laptop closed = If you really need me, I have a phone, where I can pretend not to be naked and covered in jam and sprinkles.
You only need to be able to reach the dialer buttons which only occupy the lower half of the screen at full size, and only one corner of the lower half of the screen when you enable the one-handed operation mode for people with smaller hands.
You missed the bit about the tips of the fingers holding the far edge. If it's wider than the distance between the top joint of your fingers and the crook of your thumb, then you are not gripping it. And when you lift your thumb to move from one button to another on the screen, the device would fall out of your hand.
I accept that the literal definition of a phone involves voice telephony. What I'm saying is it's a failure of a mobile phone - a bad mobile phone - if you can't hold it and operate it in one hand.
If you're walking with a case, or strap hanging in a train, you should be able to take your phone out and call someone, without the likelyhood of the phone falling out of your hand.
Once again, I'm not saying failing that makes it a bad device. It might be fine as a mini-tablet. But it's not a good phone.
Defense also looks like trying to get your own data to see what the other side found out from their hacks of you.
It might involve hiring outside hackers to probe your own defenses and report any breaches they find. But hacking into some foreign government computers to see what they have in case anything of what they have is yours - that's attack, not defense.
Or would you just close your eyes and plug your ears, build the biggest wall you can, and call that defense?
Don't confuse two different issues.
1) What I, you, they or anyone else WOULD do or SHOULD do.
2) The nature of the action. (In this case attack or defense).
Just because you may think your side should do something does not make it defense.
Besides, China's hacking has been very much in the news lately. How do you know this isn't just China's PR push?
How do you know China's hacking being in the news isn't just the USA's PR push?
What's the biggest example of cyber hacking by a government in recent years? Stuxnet. A worm designed to sabotage Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges. Who's responsible? The USA and/or Israel. And it's attack. It's not defence, even if you happen to be on the side of the USA and Israel.
Sure, it's the opposite of the classic formulation. I'm not sure if it officially counts as a tragedy of the commons, but that seemed like the best way of describing it. Maybe there's another term for it?
Since when do we determine what a phone is based on physical dimensions?
Since we were commenting on a story which asked the question: "Smartphone Screen Real Estate: How Big Is Big Enough?"
Just because you or me may not want a Note doesn't make it bad (my Nexus 4 is probably as big as I'd want to get) - it just makes us not the target customer.
As I said, it might be a fine tablet. But but IMHO it fails as a phone if it's too big (or your hands are too small) to operate one handed. As per the test I outlined.
Self defense? He started it! No, he started it! No I didn't! Yes you did! It's the stuff of children.
In Britain, we used to have a "War Office". in 1947 they changed that to "The Ministry of Defence". They still do the same thing. It's words. Propaganda.
If you honestly think when China does hacking it's attack, and when the USA does it it's defense, you've fallen for the propaganda.
Do you know what real defense to hacking looks like? It looks like like patching up vulnerabilities. It looks like using better encryption. It looks like not connecting things to the internet that don't need to be connected to it.
That's true. But it only works as an argument for a monopoly supplier. In a free market, you have a tragedy of the commons scenario, where all can see that 100% coverage would be advantageous to the technology, but none of the individual suppliers wants to be the one to put the money into those rural areas.
It MIGHT work, if there's a limited number of suppliers and they successfully negotiate to split the costs. But there's nothing in free market pressures that make that likely. The instinct to compete is usually stronger than the instinct to grow the market for everyone. Usually it takes government intervention to solve these tragedy of the commons issues.
I watched the video. First person videoing of ballooning, trapeze, ice skating, roller coasters etc.
1) Head mounted cameras have existed for years. Those people who are doing activities that produce good videos like this are already doing it.
2) How often is the ordinary person doing things like this?
It's a novelty product.
Jobs knew how to manipulate people into wanting what he had to sell them. He was an excellent salesman.
If you want to understand why Jobs products are so successful you need to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The key to understanding the philosophy, why it works, and why few techies understand it is right in there.
Right now, you don't have a clue.
E.g. ever wonder how long ago slapping a woman was acceptable as a movie scene? Do you remember "The Man with the Golden Gun" (1974)? What about the "Airplane!" (1980)?)
Who says it ever became unacceptable in a movie? Can a man be slapped? If yes, why not a woman? Not allowing slapping of women would be sexist.
Heck you're trying to say that shooting of men is acceptable, but slapping of women isn't? How does that work?
Slapping women might be unacceptable in real life. (Just as any form of violence to a woman or man is.) But movies are for playing out scenarios that are unacceptable or for other reasons don't happen in real life.
Brin is certainly showing his lack of respect for his customers and his current product (Android). And for what? A novelty.
I hope you place it with the screen towards you, at least. I don't know where they place the antennas nowadays, but I wouldn't want a device emitting microwaves onto my lungs/heart... nor my genitals, either.
It's OK, I always keep a pack of cigarettes between the phone and my chest.
But is it a phone? Where do we draw the line between phone and tablet. I suggest this:
Can you operate the Galaxy Note with one hand without it feeling like you're juggling? i.e. Resting on your hand, with the tips of your fingers holding the far edge, can your thumb reach the furthest corners of the screen to press a button. If not, it's failed as a phone.
It might be fine as a mini tablet.
I'm not saying other materials aren't stronger than steel. Obviously carbon fibre is, and is already used in car manufacture. But strong materials rely on specific crystalisation structures (steel) or fibres (carbon fibre).And those don't tend to magically come about from melting some goo in the nozzle of a 3D printer. 3D printed stuff is fragile.
Heck if their process were really stronger than steel, why are they making the chassis out of steel? Duh!
Indeed. Bluetooth headset, when in the car, office or home, fine. Used when out in public? The sign of a dick.
How did you do on all the other fashionable wearable electronics investments you've made over the years? Remember all those jackets that were made to be iPod compatible. Controls on the sleeves, earphone buds in the collar. They were a huge success. Not.
This is worse than 1984. In Oceania, one at least knew where the cameras were and could at-least try to avoid them.
You're right. Perhaps we should boycott them. Refuse to interact with anyone in front of use that's wearing one, unless they take it off. Refuse to accept phone calls from anyone that's using one as their phone etc. Just make the damn things unacceptable right from the start.
From the title of TFA: Stronger than Steel.
I doubt it.
Did you miss the part about Microsoft not being a person?
Thats before we even get to the false equivalence between lying and murder.
What sort of an idiot thinks that lying to Microsoft is in any way reprehensible? Look inward? Tar with the same brush? Grow up.
Microsoft's not a person, despite what the US law might say. It's an inhuman corporation, and one which like every other corporation makes a regular practice of deceiving people.
That's a poor comeback to the fact you didn't read the second sentence of a two sentence post.
Oh, I understand exactly what the OSS community means by it. I just don't buy it.
If I buy a toaster, I don't expect to get the circuit diagrams and plans to make my own variants on that toaster. And lets face it almost nobody would be interested in those plans anyway.
And then you compare it with Italian fascism? How utterly ridiculous. And almost a Godwin.
Hmm... I feel like Dr Evil now.