We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.
And it uses Google Maps for all of its data and routing. The poor location response is 100% due to the cheap low-power GPS hardware in most smartphones. I've never had any problem with my Infuse.
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel? And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel? We obviously need to talk about technology.
See, there were two companies. One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release. The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch. Yet you seem to think it's more likely that the first company, after years of development, suddenly completely redid it's supply, production, and assembly in two months, not counting auxiliary materials, because you have blind (or purchased) loyalty to a company that is attempting to abuse the patent system worldwide. The overwhelmingly more likely explanation is that they were both using the technology and materials available. Apple was no doubt 'inspired' by the Crunch Tablet, but that's how business works.
Oh, and regarding Apple's falsification of legal documents: Here, and here.
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue?
Of course it looks nothing like an iPad, because iPads didn't exist when this prototype was displayed. iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible. It was only after it was publicly demoed that Apple announced the iPad with several of the same design elements -- and a year later began suing people for using those same elements. (Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)
Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to -- I would assert in public that Apple most likely copied the JooJoo, not the other way around.
It's completely indefensible. If they were concerned with users, then when an app was purged it would notify you, with perhaps a handy button to go ahead and kill the app. Forcibly removing the app without input is obviously meant for situations where you have something they don't want you to have, and the problem with centralized gatekeepers like this is 'they' becomes 'everyone who does business with Microsoft' which is a scary approximation of 'everyone, period'.
The paradigm is shifting, and the golden age is ending. I hope the Linux-bashers are watching, because in ten years Linux will be the only thing keeping exploratory, hobbyist, and academic computing alive.
It wouldn't bother me so much except if we really go down this road we're going to be miles behind any country that actually lets their population play with their toys. (sigh)
Sorry, guy, the legal document as submitted is widely available, and shows the doctored photo as presented. The linked BBC article shows how it appears in the document along with how it should appear. I've got copies of both, too, and I and a lot of other people will make sure this doesn't get swept under the rug like most things critical of Apple do. They presented something that they had made "false"; that is the very definition of "falsify". If you don't believe that's what happened, why don't you tell me what did?
Changed a single thing like making it a completely different shape? Oh, that must not count since Apple falsified evidence to remove that detail from their document. The Tab is shaped completely differently from the iPad due to a different aspect ratio -- Apple clearly knows they don't have a case since they deliberately altered the image to make it look more like the iPad.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the general shape. That must be why Apple altered images in a legal document, falsifying evidence to make the Tab look more like the iPad. The Tab has a markedly different aspect ratio and is therefore longer and thinner -- so Apple's lawyers photoshopped it to remove that distinction. Well, yeah, if you lie about what a product looks like, I guess you can claim it looks like anything.
I'd say C+D+G+X+Q would get you in trouble, too, since Apple falsified evidence in legal documents submitted to the court, altering the significantly different aspect ratio of the Tab to appear more like the iPad. It's like they know they don't have a case, because they have to invent problems that don't exist.
Is that why Apple falsified evidence to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad in legal documents? (They significantly altered an image of the Tab to change the aspect ratio, since it's actually quite different from the iPad.) They obviously know that their whole case is without merit when they resort to forging evidence to invent problems that don't exist.
costs on the order of a thousand dollars
throws away 30 years of office app development
can't play a dvd
can't store more than a couple dozen gigs
doesn't allow installation of different OSs
runs anemic, "power-friendly" processors
can't multitask well
all of the above
NO. Seeread (original asker): STOP. You are within a hairsbreadth of getting yourself in very serious (federal prison) trouble. You need to drop this NOW. Further, do NOT try to destroy evidence, or do anything fancy to "cover your tracks" -- just let it drop.
It doesn't matter how easy it is. If the lock on my door can be deactivated from outside, you're still breaking into my house if you do so without my permission.
Be firm and final in your dealings with the institution -- describe to them a method that, in your opinion, could fix a problem that you are theorizing they have. Do not tell them details of their internals. Do not tell them what to do. When their lawyers get stuff like that you'll be on the bench for extortion, theft, and trespassing. Make no mistake -- you are guilty now. You simply want to maintain a goodwill relationship with the institution so that it's not worth their time to prosecute.
There is a riskier option, which is to go public. But you are betting big on which outcome is better PR for the company -- if they think they can spin it as your fault for introducing a vulnerability or "cracking" a system, you'll be in jail for the next decade, and your life as a professional will be effectively over. On the other hand, you stand to gain some notoriety, peace of mind, good karma, and possibly a job. The risk can only be judged by you based on the actions you have taken and the correspondence you have had with the company.
Think it through. If you knew a bank with poor physical security, and you wanted to demonstrate it to them, what would you do? Discuss it with them? What if they didn't listen -- would you break in at night and maybe grab a few things, and then come back later saying "ha ha I told you so"? You're no less a criminal. You can tell them, and you can tell other people (at non-zero risk to yourself). You have no further rights in this issue -- it's their problem, albeit one that affects their customers.
(I am not your lawyer. If you have some spare cash lying around you may actually want to consider counsel on this matter.)
Hi! We were having a conversation about compression. Data that is losslessly compressible can be compressed and then expanded to the exact same thing. Which means that your prized gill sequences will survive unmolested.
A duplicated pattern of bits is exactly redundant data. That's how compression works.
Processors are not atomic physical units -- or, put another way, the "laws of physics" don't get your software running as anything besides first principles.
Processors are one of the most complicated engineering feats of the human race, and performance characteristics of same are very, very complicated. Even such detailed factors as the relative size of an instruction word in the chosen instruction set have tremendous implications for power consumption and processing speed. In addition, even between processors that most would agree are comparably powerful, a program of given execution characteristics could easily differ wildly in execution time on both.
ARM was designed for efficiency, and so it's reasonable to think that it won't be easily beaten in that field -- but Intel has been designing very good processors for (in IT years) a very long time, and knows the issues and tradeoffs. Nonetheless, marketing materials from Intel based on a reference design do not an answer make, and only deployed, running handsets can answer this question.
You got yourself "a degree"? That by itself is diagnostic. People who went to school to get a marketable skill always talk about what their degree is in. Your assumption that possessing "a degree" entitles you to high-demand work is telling.
Working part-time should give you extra time to attempt alternate revenue streams. Learn to code and write programs/games. Write a book. Start a website, gather traffic, and monetize. Take a small business loan and start a business.
It sounds like you work for a pretty poor place. You should be actively seeking better employment. It can be hard to find in the current economy, especially since your degree is worthless, but perservere.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck, and feel plenty of empathy -- but no sympathy. Your life is a long string of your own choices. The choices available to other people are not relevant; it is up to you to maximize your own opportunity. Get out there and get to it.
This is probably the most nonsensical thing I've heard all year.
Okay. One, you obviously don't have kids. Age of majority isn't arbitrary, and it's worth at least putting up a few bumps between children and some of the more out-there stuff. Two, if you can access the material, it's not censorship -- and if you can't access content protected by age verification, then you are not part of the voting body, and are therefore a non-entity vis-a-vis the government, and therefore cannot be a target of censorship. Three, read one and two again.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.
And it uses Google Maps for all of its data and routing. The poor location response is 100% due to the cheap low-power GPS hardware in most smartphones. I've never had any problem with my Infuse.
First appearance of computers: 1946.
Ergo, we are using technology almost a century old!
Really? They specifically exclude Java 1.4 and later?
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel? And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel? We obviously need to talk about technology.
See, there were two companies. One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release. The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch. Yet you seem to think it's more likely that the first company, after years of development, suddenly completely redid it's supply, production, and assembly in two months, not counting auxiliary materials, because you have blind (or purchased) loyalty to a company that is attempting to abuse the patent system worldwide. The overwhelmingly more likely explanation is that they were both using the technology and materials available. Apple was no doubt 'inspired' by the Crunch Tablet, but that's how business works.
Oh, and regarding Apple's falsification of legal documents:
Here, and here.
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue?
Of course it looks nothing like an iPad, because iPads didn't exist when this prototype was displayed. iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible. It was only after it was publicly demoed that Apple announced the iPad with several of the same design elements -- and a year later began suing people for using those same elements. (Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)
Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to -- I would assert in public that Apple most likely copied the JooJoo, not the other way around.
Article detailing the lawsuit here. Apple did, in fact, sue the local business asserting a stronger claim to the trademark.
It's completely indefensible. If they were concerned with users, then when an app was purged it would notify you, with perhaps a handy button to go ahead and kill the app. Forcibly removing the app without input is obviously meant for situations where you have something they don't want you to have, and the problem with centralized gatekeepers like this is 'they' becomes 'everyone who does business with Microsoft' which is a scary approximation of 'everyone, period'.
The paradigm is shifting, and the golden age is ending. I hope the Linux-bashers are watching, because in ten years Linux will be the only thing keeping exploratory, hobbyist, and academic computing alive.
It wouldn't bother me so much except if we really go down this road we're going to be miles behind any country that actually lets their population play with their toys. (sigh)
Yeah, sandboxed HTML5+Javascript sounds blazing fast.
Sorry, guy, the legal document as submitted is widely available, and shows the doctored photo as presented. The linked BBC article shows how it appears in the document along with how it should appear. I've got copies of both, too, and I and a lot of other people will make sure this doesn't get swept under the rug like most things critical of Apple do. They presented something that they had made "false"; that is the very definition of "falsify". If you don't believe that's what happened, why don't you tell me what did?
Changed a single thing like making it a completely different shape? Oh, that must not count since Apple falsified evidence to remove that detail from their document. The Tab is shaped completely differently from the iPad due to a different aspect ratio -- Apple clearly knows they don't have a case since they deliberately altered the image to make it look more like the iPad.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the general shape. That must be why Apple altered images in a legal document, falsifying evidence to make the Tab look more like the iPad. The Tab has a markedly different aspect ratio and is therefore longer and thinner -- so Apple's lawyers photoshopped it to remove that distinction. Well, yeah, if you lie about what a product looks like, I guess you can claim it looks like anything.
I'd say C+D+G+X+Q would get you in trouble, too, since Apple falsified evidence in legal documents submitted to the court, altering the significantly different aspect ratio of the Tab to appear more like the iPad. It's like they know they don't have a case, because they have to invent problems that don't exist.
Is that why Apple falsified evidence to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad in legal documents? (They significantly altered an image of the Tab to change the aspect ratio, since it's actually quite different from the iPad.) They obviously know that their whole case is without merit when they resort to forging evidence to invent problems that don't exist.
costs on the order of a thousand dollars
throws away 30 years of office app development
can't play a dvd
can't store more than a couple dozen gigs
doesn't allow installation of different OSs
runs anemic, "power-friendly" processors
can't multitask well
all of the above
NO. Seeread (original asker): STOP. You are within a hairsbreadth of getting yourself in very serious (federal prison) trouble. You need to drop this NOW. Further, do NOT try to destroy evidence, or do anything fancy to "cover your tracks" -- just let it drop.
It doesn't matter how easy it is. If the lock on my door can be deactivated from outside, you're still breaking into my house if you do so without my permission.
Be firm and final in your dealings with the institution -- describe to them a method that, in your opinion, could fix a problem that you are theorizing they have. Do not tell them details of their internals. Do not tell them what to do. When their lawyers get stuff like that you'll be on the bench for extortion, theft, and trespassing. Make no mistake -- you are guilty now. You simply want to maintain a goodwill relationship with the institution so that it's not worth their time to prosecute.
There is a riskier option, which is to go public. But you are betting big on which outcome is better PR for the company -- if they think they can spin it as your fault for introducing a vulnerability or "cracking" a system, you'll be in jail for the next decade, and your life as a professional will be effectively over. On the other hand, you stand to gain some notoriety, peace of mind, good karma, and possibly a job. The risk can only be judged by you based on the actions you have taken and the correspondence you have had with the company.
Think it through. If you knew a bank with poor physical security, and you wanted to demonstrate it to them, what would you do? Discuss it with them? What if they didn't listen -- would you break in at night and maybe grab a few things, and then come back later saying "ha ha I told you so"? You're no less a criminal. You can tell them, and you can tell other people (at non-zero risk to yourself). You have no further rights in this issue -- it's their problem, albeit one that affects their customers.
(I am not your lawyer. If you have some spare cash lying around you may actually want to consider counsel on this matter.)
Hi! We were having a conversation about compression. Data that is losslessly compressible can be compressed and then expanded to the exact same thing. Which means that your prized gill sequences will survive unmolested.
A duplicated pattern of bits is exactly redundant data. That's how compression works.
Processors are not atomic physical units -- or, put another way, the "laws of physics" don't get your software running as anything besides first principles.
Processors are one of the most complicated engineering feats of the human race, and performance characteristics of same are very, very complicated. Even such detailed factors as the relative size of an instruction word in the chosen instruction set have tremendous implications for power consumption and processing speed. In addition, even between processors that most would agree are comparably powerful, a program of given execution characteristics could easily differ wildly in execution time on both.
ARM was designed for efficiency, and so it's reasonable to think that it won't be easily beaten in that field -- but Intel has been designing very good processors for (in IT years) a very long time, and knows the issues and tradeoffs. Nonetheless, marketing materials from Intel based on a reference design do not an answer make, and only deployed, running handsets can answer this question.
You got yourself "a degree"? That by itself is diagnostic. People who went to school to get a marketable skill always talk about what their degree is in. Your assumption that possessing "a degree" entitles you to high-demand work is telling.
Working part-time should give you extra time to attempt alternate revenue streams. Learn to code and write programs/games. Write a book. Start a website, gather traffic, and monetize. Take a small business loan and start a business.
It sounds like you work for a pretty poor place. You should be actively seeking better employment. It can be hard to find in the current economy, especially since your degree is worthless, but perservere.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck, and feel plenty of empathy -- but no sympathy. Your life is a long string of your own choices. The choices available to other people are not relevant; it is up to you to maximize your own opportunity. Get out there and get to it.
If it is arbitrary, why doesn't it vary across country in a completely random distribution from 1 to (say) 70?
Perhaps we disagree on what arbitrary means. Are laws against murder arbitrary? If you think so, then we simply will not agree on this issue.
This is probably the most nonsensical thing I've heard all year.
Okay. One, you obviously don't have kids. Age of majority isn't arbitrary, and it's worth at least putting up a few bumps between children and some of the more out-there stuff. Two, if you can access the material, it's not censorship -- and if you can't access content protected by age verification, then you are not part of the voting body, and are therefore a non-entity vis-a-vis the government, and therefore cannot be a target of censorship. Three, read one and two again.
Why isn't anyone commenting on this exchange? I'm likely going to be laughing at odd moments all day. Not sure what I missed, but kudos to both ACs.
AT&T, $120/3 months: 1350 anytime minutes, rollover, unlimited mobile-to-mobile, 15000 night/weekend minutes, AT&T network (good)
Virgin Mobile, $15/3 months: 75 minutes, no rollover, 0 mobile to mobile, 0 night/weekend, Sprint network (bad)
Turns out that if you spend more on something, you can get more. AT&T "gets away" with charging more because it's not an occasional-use voice service.
Wish I had mod points. Thanks for the explanation; I found that extremely interesting!