How is support for the HTC G1? How many other 3 year old phones still get regular updates?
I'm not saying it's acceptable, I'm just pointing out Apple isn't any worse than any other manufacturer in this. And it's not exactly surprising, considering the networks want to sell us a phone every two years.
At the moment, the only way out of this is to make sure you own your phone, and aren't tied to a manufacturer or network to keep your phone up to date.
Some darkness doesn't hurt, but a bit of light in the morning definitely does help you to wake up. Even for a goth. I live at only 54 degrees latitude, and I too notice the difference in winter.
This project only gets people a wake-up light next to their beds, as far as I can tell, so it's really only about helping their brains to wake up properly. The rest of the day is still spent mostly in darkness if they go outside. (Of course they have proper lightning indoors.)
There was that one time when a major vulnerability was presented (even here!) as a very convenient way to jailbreak your iPhone. Just visit this website!
Probably because the hardware is not compatible enough anymore. When technology moves as fast as this, a 3 year cycle is still better than what many other manufacturers give us. Networks expect us to get a new phone every two years.
Not arguing on the usefulness of Multi-touch but do you think it's actually an invention worthy of patents or simply a natural extension of touch screens?
I have no idea. I think it is an incredibly useful invention, but also the obvious killer feature for touch screens.
Did Apple invent it? I'm no patent lawyer, but my impression was that various forms of multitouch have existed for some time already. Apple is obviously a big champion of the technology, but is that really patent worthy?
You're kidding, right? If multitouch is eliminated from Android, there's very little reason for me to keep using Android. The problem isn't with the apps that support it, it's with the apps that don't support it. Multitouch adds a lot of power to the UI for those apps that can make use of that power.
in theory, maximising profit could include making a decent product etc etc in practice, it means branding, monopolization, etc so you don't have to work hard and make a profit.
Show me one company, marketing to the public, that has succeeded without making a product/service that people want to buy.
If we go that route, I'd prefer Larry Page. I don't know much about him, but every time Eric Schmidt opens his mouth, stupid crap comes out that would put even George W Bush to shame.
Do you want the page on Christianity to start by mentioning the many dead due to witch hunts and crusades? Should the page on capitalism start with the misery it causes?
Wikipedia pages on an ideology describe that ideology, not the atrocities that are related to that ideology. In fact, I'm pretty sure many of those atrocities already have their own pages on wikipedia. It'd be useless to spam the entire site with them because some idiots seem to think they're more important than any other topic in the encyclopedia.
An Executive agreement tends to sit just slightly above federal laws, but they cannot contradict any treaties or the Constitution itself. What's the practical effect of this? Not much - but it is easier to strike them down in a court, I suppose.
So an Executive Agreement has higher supremacy than a law, despite the fact that the legislature has no say in it?
So basically a president can create whatever laws he wants without interference by the Senate, as long as he can give an international spin to it and can get at least one other country to do the same? And it shouldn't be too unconstitutional, of course.
But surely an Executive Ageement has nowhere near the same power as a Treaty, right? My guess is that a Treaty is pretty much a law (sometimes stronger than a law, because a country can't unilaterally repeal it), whereas an Executive Treaty is more like saying: "how about we let our navies train together?".
I don't understand why Obama is so hung up on the ACTA. The negotiations started before he came to power, didn't they? Why is it his baby? Or is he just talking with the same lobbyists?
Slashdot Mirror
How is support for the HTC G1? How many other 3 year old phones still get regular updates?
I'm not saying it's acceptable, I'm just pointing out Apple isn't any worse than any other manufacturer in this. And it's not exactly surprising, considering the networks want to sell us a phone every two years.
At the moment, the only way out of this is to make sure you own your phone, and aren't tied to a manufacturer or network to keep your phone up to date.
the highest polar bear v. tourist ratio.
That's got to count for something too, right?
Standards can differ quite a lot, apparently. Netherland has villages of 50,000.
It's not their latest product. It's existed for years, but apparently nobody had come up with the idea of marketing this in Spitsbergen.
Some darkness doesn't hurt, but a bit of light in the morning definitely does help you to wake up. Even for a goth. I live at only 54 degrees latitude, and I too notice the difference in winter.
This project only gets people a wake-up light next to their beds, as far as I can tell, so it's really only about helping their brains to wake up properly. The rest of the day is still spent mostly in darkness if they go outside. (Of course they have proper lightning indoors.)
There was that one time when a major vulnerability was presented (even here!) as a very convenient way to jailbreak your iPhone. Just visit this website!
Really? It was still $500 when I considered the N900. (I chose against it because I don't want a stylus; I want multitouch.)
Probably because the hardware is not compatible enough anymore. When technology moves as fast as this, a 3 year cycle is still better than what many other manufacturers give us. Networks expect us to get a new phone every two years.
Motorola, HTC and all the rest could take a page from Apple and take better care of their customers.
Personally I'd appreciate it if Motorola took a page from HTC and didn't use an encrypted bootloader, so I can update the OS myself.
Not arguing on the usefulness of Multi-touch but do you think it's actually an invention worthy of patents or simply a natural extension of touch screens?
I have no idea. I think it is an incredibly useful invention, but also the obvious killer feature for touch screens.
Did Apple invent it? I'm no patent lawyer, but my impression was that various forms of multitouch have existed for some time already. Apple is obviously a big champion of the technology, but is that really patent worthy?
Don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out.
If you're going to be that childish, please get the fuck out.
In any case, I don't think Android will be dropping multitouch at all. It's just too useful. Even if Google drops it, others will add it again.
Even so, it's one of the best examples of a company that manages to sell products to people who don't want them, but feel like they have no choice.
You're kidding, right? If multitouch is eliminated from Android, there's very little reason for me to keep using Android. The problem isn't with the apps that support it, it's with the apps that don't support it. Multitouch adds a lot of power to the UI for those apps that can make use of that power.
Show me one company, marketing to the public, that has succeeded without making a product/service that people want to buy.
Microsoft.
Google *really* tries to NOT BE EVIL.
And sometimes it almost seems like they might succeed.
In the end, power always corrupts, and Google wields quite a bit of power.
I honestly love Google for many of the great things they do, but they also definitely have their dark side.
If we go that route, I'd prefer Larry Page. I don't know much about him, but every time Eric Schmidt opens his mouth, stupid crap comes out that would put even George W Bush to shame.
Do you want the page on Christianity to start by mentioning the many dead due to witch hunts and crusades? Should the page on capitalism start with the misery it causes?
Wikipedia pages on an ideology describe that ideology, not the atrocities that are related to that ideology. In fact, I'm pretty sure many of those atrocities already have their own pages on wikipedia. It'd be useless to spam the entire site with them because some idiots seem to think they're more important than any other topic in the encyclopedia.
An Executive agreement tends to sit just slightly above federal laws, but they cannot contradict any treaties or the Constitution itself. What's the practical effect of this? Not much - but it is easier to strike them down in a court, I suppose.
So an Executive Agreement has higher supremacy than a law, despite the fact that the legislature has no say in it?
Just pointing out the gaping hole in the system.
If enough of you were awake, you'd all vote for a party that wanted to change the system, and you'd burn the offices of Diebold to the ground.
You don't mind if details of your sexual encounters were shared with all your friends and family?
So basically a president can create whatever laws he wants without interference by the Senate, as long as he can give an international spin to it and can get at least one other country to do the same?
And it shouldn't be too unconstitutional, of course.
Sounds like an awful lack of checks and balances.
But surely an Executive Ageement has nowhere near the same power as a Treaty, right? My guess is that a Treaty is pretty much a law (sometimes stronger than a law, because a country can't unilaterally repeal it), whereas an Executive Treaty is more like saying: "how about we let our navies train together?".
I don't understand why Obama is so hung up on the ACTA. The negotiations started before he came to power, didn't they? Why is it his baby? Or is he just talking with the same lobbyists?
But that's the entire point of games! To challenge yourself and make you think. Isn't it? Otherwise I'd be grinding through WoW.
It seems to take enough time that parents can completely neglect their children because of it.