Some of the new droid handhelds can do split screen.
Good grief. Yes, split-screen apps really was an advantage for HP WebOS wasn't it. So successful.
If you are watching a video on a long bus ride, it sucks to have someone text you the iPhone.
Either you want to stick with the movie, or you want to read/reply to the message, and go back to the movie later. You can try and do both, but in reality you'll just lose track of what's happening in the movie.
I agree that they launched a little bit too early. But the symptom of that was the unavailability of a native SDK at launch, and the associated nonsense about web apps being the platform. Also the original lack or cut'n'paste.
But not these...
For example, due to lack of processing/GPU power and a desire to make apps look slick they decided to go with a fixed resolution and mono-tasking. Now they are stuck with making every new screen a multiple of the original iPhone or iPad resolution, and suffering from black borders when they wanted to go widescreen. They can't easily introduce multitasking either, just a kind of bodge for a few select applications.
Neither of those are true.
Fixed resolution has nothing to do with limited CPU/GPU power. It's a positive design decision. That on a small screen apps need to be specifically designed for a particular screen, not be resizable.
And of course Apple could quite easily introduce traditional multitasking. It's intrinsic to the unix that underlies the OS. And all the levels above that were already created with multitasking ability, as they were adapted from OSX. And the CPU was certainly enough to support it. The iPhone CPU from the start was far more powerful than the original Mac CPUs that OSX ran on. The very easiest thing to do would be to introduce traditional multitasking.
They didn't for two reasons.
a) Battery life. You see it on Android very often that some crappily written app that's still running in the background takes hours off the battery life. That doesn't happen on iOS.
b) Simplicity of the UI for users. Phones are supposed to be simple devices, with app interactions typically being seconds rather than minutes or hours. Nor do Phones don't have overlapping windows, nor screen real estate for permanent docks/task bars - the indicators of multiple apps running on desktop OSs. So some other form of app switcher/manager is required for multitasking. The original concept was that this was too heavyweight for a phone.
The fixed screen size decision is a good one that has stood the test of time. iPhone apps ARE better for being specifically designed for the size of screen. And doubling is the perfect answer to higher resolution technology being available.
The longer screen size is fine, as in practice, the tricky dimension is the width. Most apps are list based, so having more of a list shown doesn't change the app design. Whereas changing the width would mean different text limits/layout of list items.
The initial design decision of no multitasking didn't last. But it's no bad thing to start with a very simple UI design, then add more complicated features later. And they did keep the battery conservation plan by only allowing system services at actually run in the background.
in the longer term they built a platform with many of the limitations that desktop operating systems suffered from in the 80s. Many never overcame those limits, and when they did it was often with a horror show like Windows 95.
Haven't a clue what you're talking about here. Presumably it's something about the lack of pre-emptive multitasking on early OSs. But the iPhone HAS pre-emptive multitasking. It just doesn't allow multiple apps to run arbitrary code at the same time. That's not the same thing.
So self defense of life/property or rebelling against a government, if it tries to ignore the majority will of the people, are not legitimate uses of guns?
Not only are they not legitimate, they're barely rational.
The GP doesn't mean what is the country going to look like to other countries. The GP means what is the country going to look like to those that matter... the citizens.
So did I.
The rest of the world can rot in hell, when it comes to that comparison.
I didn't say murders, I said deaths. Because that is the appropriate comparison with motor vehicle deaths.
I've no idea what point you want to make with the estimate of "defensive firearms", as you don't say. But given the source of the figures is a gun lobby site, the figures are not reputable anyway.
I don't. My experience is that gun-supporters lie about evidence just about as much as climate change deniers.
The benefit of having the government fund research is that it's not going to be a lie. It's going to be peer reviewed, and open to challenge if there is anything wrong with the methodology. Unlike the kind of NRA sponsored nonsense the gun lobby prefers.
Lots of people die in "accidents" when guns are around. That's one reason for banning them.
Meanwhile, how many stores were not looted?
I've no idea, and apparently neither have you. But you think the 50 extra lives the guns cost were worth a bit of stock that you imagine MIGHT have been saved.
And all of that happened because Randy Weaver thought: "It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them. Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights."
Had he not owned guns, or had he not had the insane thought that the government are not allowed to arrest him for his failure to appear and he could keep them off with his guns. Than none of it would have happened. His family would all still be alive, as would the Federal Agents.
For sure the Federal Agents messed up badly. But there wouldn't have been hundreds of federal officers pointing rifles at the house in the first place had it not been for Weavers insane survivalist gun nut beliefs. An insanity encapsulated in the previous posters comment. And an insanity that you seem to defend and think is reasonable. By people's company shall we know them.
At the time -- Clinton-era, think -- there was a major push by the anti-gun lobby. There was a major issue with gov't-funded research painting ridiculously poor pictures, using bad data and analysis, drawing bad conclusions, all in an effort to ban firearms.
That the statistics favour the anti-gun lobby doesn't mean they're bad statistics. It means the anti-gun lobby are right.
Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.
The percent sign comes after the number. 100%. It's little clues like that that make one alert to the fact the writer is a crank.
This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it.
I did. It's Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) Â 140.50 that became effective September 1, 1971. Clearly that's not the same Mayor.
After that your rant quickly becomes incoherent, and clearly it's not worth further fact checking.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the new droid handhelds can do split screen.
Good grief. Yes, split-screen apps really was an advantage for HP WebOS wasn't it. So successful.
If you are watching a video on a long bus ride, it sucks to have someone text you the iPhone.
Either you want to stick with the movie, or you want to read/reply to the message, and go back to the movie later. You can try and do both, but in reality you'll just lose track of what's happening in the movie.
The ability to do both on a phone is a novelty.
I agree that they launched a little bit too early. But the symptom of that was the unavailability of a native SDK at launch, and the associated nonsense about web apps being the platform. Also the original lack or cut'n'paste.
But not these...
For example, due to lack of processing/GPU power and a desire to make apps look slick they decided to go with a fixed resolution and mono-tasking. Now they are stuck with making every new screen a multiple of the original iPhone or iPad resolution, and suffering from black borders when they wanted to go widescreen. They can't easily introduce multitasking either, just a kind of bodge for a few select applications.
Neither of those are true.
Fixed resolution has nothing to do with limited CPU/GPU power. It's a positive design decision. That on a small screen apps need to be specifically designed for a particular screen, not be resizable.
And of course Apple could quite easily introduce traditional multitasking. It's intrinsic to the unix that underlies the OS. And all the levels above that were already created with multitasking ability, as they were adapted from OSX. And the CPU was certainly enough to support it. The iPhone CPU from the start was far more powerful than the original Mac CPUs that OSX ran on. The very easiest thing to do would be to introduce traditional multitasking.
They didn't for two reasons.
a) Battery life. You see it on Android very often that some crappily written app that's still running in the background takes hours off the battery life. That doesn't happen on iOS.
b) Simplicity of the UI for users. Phones are supposed to be simple devices, with app interactions typically being seconds rather than minutes or hours. Nor do Phones don't have overlapping windows, nor screen real estate for permanent docks/task bars - the indicators of multiple apps running on desktop OSs. So some other form of app switcher/manager is required for multitasking. The original concept was that this was too heavyweight for a phone.
The fixed screen size decision is a good one that has stood the test of time. iPhone apps ARE better for being specifically designed for the size of screen. And doubling is the perfect answer to higher resolution technology being available.
The longer screen size is fine, as in practice, the tricky dimension is the width. Most apps are list based, so having more of a list shown doesn't change the app design. Whereas changing the width would mean different text limits/layout of list items.
The initial design decision of no multitasking didn't last. But it's no bad thing to start with a very simple UI design, then add more complicated features later. And they did keep the battery conservation plan by only allowing system services at actually run in the background.
in the longer term they built a platform with many of the limitations that desktop operating systems suffered from in the 80s. Many never overcame those limits, and when they did it was often with a horror show like Windows 95.
Haven't a clue what you're talking about here. Presumably it's something about the lack of pre-emptive multitasking on early OSs. But the iPhone HAS pre-emptive multitasking. It just doesn't allow multiple apps to run arbitrary code at the same time. That's not the same thing.
You obviously like making a fool out of yourself. I wrote up the history here 2 days ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3384943&cid=42605951
Israel is the last place on earth I would want to visit. Why bring it up? Wallowing in inherited victim status is supposed to change the facts is it?
"An insane white supremacist."
Except that he wasn't.
I agree, they would have just indiscriminately killed everyone on the Weaver property.
Clearly, you're insane as well. Another nut with a gun.
So self defense of life/property or rebelling against a government, if it tries to ignore the majority will of the people, are not legitimate uses of guns?
Not only are they not legitimate, they're barely rational.
The GP doesn't mean what is the country going to look like to other countries. The GP means what is the country going to look like to those that matter... the citizens.
So did I.
The rest of the world can rot in hell, when it comes to that comparison.
Fuck you.
Murders committed using a firearm
I didn't say murders, I said deaths. Because that is the appropriate comparison with motor vehicle deaths.
I've no idea what point you want to make with the estimate of "defensive firearms", as you don't say. But given the source of the figures is a gun lobby site, the figures are not reputable anyway.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin.
With 12,664 total murders in 2011 (Down about 500 from 2010, mind you), 323 is pretty insignificant, yes.
2.5% does not meet any statistical idea of "insignificance". No, it's not insignificant even as a figure. Far less so as it's real people's lives.
Congratulations, you just Godwined yourself.
You'll have to take my word.
I don't. My experience is that gun-supporters lie about evidence just about as much as climate change deniers.
The benefit of having the government fund research is that it's not going to be a lie. It's going to be peer reviewed, and open to challenge if there is anything wrong with the methodology. Unlike the kind of NRA sponsored nonsense the gun lobby prefers.
As I pointed out, the outcome of a similar riot in London was better, people were safer, because guns were not involved.
One guy died in an accident.
Lots of people die in "accidents" when guns are around. That's one reason for banning them.
Meanwhile, how many stores were not looted?
I've no idea, and apparently neither have you. But you think the 50 extra lives the guns cost were worth a bit of stock that you imagine MIGHT have been saved.
Mini-14 is not an "assault weapon"
Who told you that?
Killing people with a gun is illegal.
The equivalent of that is "killing people whilst drunk is illegal". Sorry, but the killing part isn't necessary to make it illegal. You fail.
Unfortunately, alcohol ownership isn't yet.
Did you learn nothing from the 1920s/1930s?
Bullshit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-17/howard-adds-voice-to-us-gun-control-debate/4469482
Another crank.
And all of that happened because Randy Weaver thought: "It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them. Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights."
Had he not owned guns, or had he not had the insane thought that the government are not allowed to arrest him for his failure to appear and he could keep them off with his guns. Than none of it would have happened. His family would all still be alive, as would the Federal Agents.
For sure the Federal Agents messed up badly. But there wouldn't have been hundreds of federal officers pointing rifles at the house in the first place had it not been for Weavers insane survivalist gun nut beliefs. An insanity encapsulated in the previous posters comment. And an insanity that you seem to defend and think is reasonable. By people's company shall we know them.
After some instruction and about 10 mins practice I could reload the 1911 in 2 seconds.
So you learned to do the party trick at a basic level. Again, this doesn't represent the real world in the middle of a massacre.
At the time -- Clinton-era, think -- there was a major push by the anti-gun lobby. There was a major issue with gov't-funded research painting ridiculously poor pictures, using bad data and analysis, drawing bad conclusions, all in an effort to ban firearms.
That the statistics favour the anti-gun lobby doesn't mean they're bad statistics. It means the anti-gun lobby are right.
All of the gun control proposals I have heard would have done nothing to stop Newtown and Aurora.
You never heard the proposal to ban civilian ownership of guns? Then let me be the first to present it to you.
Perfect!
Spam.
Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.
The percent sign comes after the number. 100%. It's little clues like that that make one alert to the fact the writer is a crank.
This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it.
I did. It's Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) Â 140.50 that became effective September 1, 1971. Clearly that's not the same Mayor.
After that your rant quickly becomes incoherent, and clearly it's not worth further fact checking.
Drink driving is illegal. Unfortunately gun-ownership isn't yet.