Yes, because we all know how successful government spying on every citizen had managed to keep Muslim militants in line and cartels and gangsters from existing.
Boston Marathon bombing. Sarin Gas attack by Syria. School shooting rampages 9/11 1000 killed by car bombs in Iraq in September alone One Drug Killing every half hour in Mexico
Except she had no idea what she was doing (if anything) at the time she did it, and only became a "hero" by surviving, or being saved by British doctors.
Snowden, on the other hand knew he was putting himself in the bullseye for the head-shot, knew ahead of time that he had to give up everything he had, and would very likely end up (best case) in prison, or worst-case dead of a head-shot "trying to escape".
Malala has changed nothing, for all her suffering. Islam is still Islam. Snowden has changed the world.
Samsung does allow "windowed" apps. You can watch video in a window while reading email or whatever. Not terribly useful, I agree.
But much more common. you can have many widgets running all the time, you can have a boat load of tasks running in any smartphone. Mostly these affect battery life by keeping your radios up and running, but lots of these run even when you are doing something on the phone, such as surfing or email, or (horrors!) talking.
The Note was a couple of percent faster on renamed benchmark apps, and a whopping 20% faster on normally named benchmark apps. The point is that they were already faster so cheating wasn't even necessary.
Not really. A couple of percent faster is not humanly detectable. 20% is.
Any programmer worth his pay can tune code to achieve 2%.
I'd have thought it would prove the principle that the optimizations aren't app specific.
The optimizations ARE app specific, in that they are specific to all apps except benchmarks.
Granted, you can twist your mind around to see the reasoning behind it, but in doing so you must come to the conclusion that using all 4 cores is so expensive in terms of battery power that running 4 cores is for the most part forbidden. And if forbidden, why have 4 cores?
It locking fore cores to high power mode yielded a 2% advantage in performance this wouldn't be a big deal. But it yields a 20% performance boost in an app that is already stressing the processor.
Doesn't that mean that the penalty for allowing apps to spin up 4 cores to handle peak load is SO BATTERY INTENSIVE, that Samsung won't allow it?
The benchmarking itself seems to be flawed. Samsung wants to benchmark the devices at their full capacity, to see what they are capable of (the higher setting is reached in normal use of some apps anyway). The testers would probably like to do real world comparison tests (and not rely just on numbers). I don't see Samsung doing anything wrong here, even though the benchmarking apps are specifically chosen.
You have a point, that a device should be tested to its highest capacity.
However, if EVERY other application is PREVENTED from achieving that highest capacity the tests are already biased.
And in truth, that is not always a BAD thing. After all, locking the other cores to full power for a test, but preventing that for day to day usage is simply a battery saving feature. Having multiple cores is useful so that other work can be performed at the same time as your phone checks mail or some such.
But on the other hand, why put in special features to defeat the NORMAL operation of the core-switching and allow it ONLY for benchmarks?
After all, if the benchmarks can in fact stress the phones enough to spin up all the Cores, that would be a useful measure of performance, and it would also show what you can expect when you are banging away at some video game. On the other hand, if you can't actually light up all four cores in normal usage, then why have 4 cores at all?
Samsung is clearly defeating some of their battery saving technology for benchmarks, and it amounts to 20% better measurements. What they have unwittingly done is show us the huge performance penalty this battery saving logic imposes.
Powering up additional cores appears to be hugely expensive in terms of battery power, so expensive, that Samsung won't allow any other software to do it on a routine basis.
Have they just made the case for dual cores more attractive and quad cores less so?
Not that simple. In fact, I've never seen anyone strut up and say "wanna race phones"?
Sure, given two of anything, the natural human thing to do is race them. Turtles, Frogs, even snails.
But when laying out money, people try to get the best buy for the buck, and not knowing how a phone will perform once you get it loaded down with apps, means that they have to turn to something that really stresses the phone over a short period of time hoping to measure the phone's ability to remain future proof a little bit longer.
Not always having the opportunity to load our own software onto a phone and use it for a week, we do the SAME THING that we do with EVERY other product we buy: We read specs.
We read the specs on cameras, cars, computers, TVs, plumbers, and even your box of Cheerios. We even read the expiration dates on a Bottle of Milk. We then choose accordingly.
Samsung saw this and decided to game the system to gain an advantage. Their gain was short lived, and quickly discovered.
Don't take a normal behavior of seeking the best product available for the price, and try to turn it into some petty childish one-upsmanship game. That speaks more about your mindset than normal rational behavior when the market place presents you with choices.
Old folks don't necessary look at the world as a place where you buy a few shares of Apple or Google and wait for it to grow, or where you throw money into a gambling addiction expecting your luck has to turn someday.
The author tries to spin simple fiscal conservatism as something irrational. But older people know the odds are always in the houses favor, and are less willing to play that game. Sounds like the people with gambling addiction were the people writing the story.
Just as likely, the older folks saw thru the research and a painless way to bet on a big score, something they seldom actually do in real live.
As for unacceptability to scams, you really only see this in people new to the internet or who never had to deal with dishonest merchants before, perhaps because a deceased loved one took care of that for them in the past. Unless there is an under lying dementia problem old folks are harder to fool than kids, or even 20-somethings.
You buy 30000 devices on one order and you will get discount as well. Regardless of who makes the devices. Throw in an advertising deal, "Delta Flys High on the Surface", and you will get an even better price.
Buying 11,000 Microsoft Surface 2 tablets is not "gave it to us free".
Surface 2 release date is set for October 22, not two years, and these don't have to be certified. Something that can show your flight maps and NOTAMS today will show the same in two years.
Meh, it wasn't that big of a deal when I left corporate employ to buy private medical insurance. Still have it today. I'm lumped in a category of similar size businesses for actuarial purposes. And I will pay more under obamacare.
Its not the panacea you think. And its not going to be as cheap as you think. Forbes says it will be almost $7500 per year for a family of four. Time pretty much concurs.
The only way this proves a boon to entrepreneurship is if they skates on the insurance (refuse to buy) and just pay the fine. And why wouldn't they? The fine is 1/12th of the cost of an actual insurance policy.
If YOU agreed to the terms, and YOUR country makes that illegal, that's YOUR problem. Maybe YOU committed a crime by agreeing to follow a foreign company's rules.
This Idea that I have to justify a NEED might work in a top down command economy like North Korea, but even the former Soviet Union doesn't believe in that nonsense any more.
Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.
You're an idiot.
Can you possibly imagine running a internet service where each user gets to pick their own terms? How would you possibly keep track of that? Do you even think for one minute before you rush in to post something?
How is this unusual? Don't French websites have the same provisions? How about France24 a popular news site:
These Conditions of Use will be subject to and interpreted in accordance with French law. Any dispute which cannot be resolved by agreement will be referred to the courts of Nanterre. In the event that any of the provisions of the Conditions of Use is held to be null or void, the remaining provisions will automatically be deemed to apply.
10.2. This Agreement shall be regulated and interpreted according to laws of the Russian Federation. Any issues not regulated hereby shall be settled according to Russian law. Any disputes arising out of relations regulated by this Agreement shall be settled as prescribed by applicable Russian laws according to Russian legal standards. In any part of this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, the term “law” shall mean laws of the Russian Federation as well as laws of the country of the User’s location.
People choose these types of restrictions EVERY TIME they sign up or use any site. Its the same everywhere in the world. You play in their arena, you play by their rules. And its not like neither of those examples or 100 others have foreign offices. They both do.
There is no reason Google should have to do anything other than that. The international standard for governance of web sites is that the Home Country Rules.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Agreed. But on the other hand, since nobody has seen Mozumder's photos, any camera he posses is useless as well, according to his rules.
Only an idiot would assume a camera phone is the way to go for anything but the most trivial subset of general purpose photography. and 99.9% of camera phone shots are never viewed, by anyone but the phone owner, and at least 40% of them aren't even viewed by the owner except to delete them.
Maybe most people don't need a dSLR with the quality of some of the Mirrorless cameras on the market today. There is very little real need for reflex cameras at all, since all they do in introduce another source of vibration.
But to assume that they are useless and no one should have one is just silly.
I don't condone a separate phone for a 4 year old either. Further, if mom is going to be that uncooperative, she would just take the phone away anyway.
Still, I could probably find a hundred posts on slashdot lamenting the fact that playing with a phone is a solitary activity, which you now seem to endorse, in some perverse sense when it comes to dumb chunks of plastic, but not when something with real educational potential is involved.
4 years old is right in the middle of those years when social skills are being acquired and should be practiced. Putting that age group alone in a room with a box of Legos is exactly the wrong treatment. Sort of like training for a life in their parents basement.
Ok, so French citizens can't read the EULA. Isn't that an indication that the French education system needs reform more than Google's very clear EULA? I'm sure if your comment warranted it I could dig up the french version
I mean, google's policy is written for the much lamented 8th grade education in US Public Schools. If the French can't read that then they probably don't use google's services anyway.
Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison. French companies would still advertise on Google even if google closed up shop in France entirely. They would just do it elsewhere. Its not that hard.
But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google. So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.
He did post his reason for wanting a four year old to have a phone.
But since you seem to think everyone posting here woes you some justification, I'd like to know what the fuck you are doing here, and why you think you are in a position to make demands. Playing by your rules, nothing less than a 12 page essay, single space college ruled, hand written, blue ball point pen will suffice.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because we all know how successful government spying on every citizen had managed to keep Muslim militants in line and cartels and gangsters from existing.
Boston Marathon bombing.
Sarin Gas attack by Syria.
School shooting rampages
9/11
1000 killed by car bombs in Iraq in September alone
One Drug Killing every half hour in Mexico
With protection like that, who needs them!
Except she had no idea what she was doing (if anything) at the time she did it, and only became a "hero" by surviving, or being saved by British doctors.
Snowden, on the other hand knew he was putting himself in the bullseye for the head-shot, knew ahead of time that he had to give up
everything he had, and would very likely end up (best case) in prison, or worst-case dead of a head-shot "trying to escape".
Malala has changed nothing, for all her suffering. Islam is still Islam. Snowden has changed the world.
Samsung does allow "windowed" apps. You can watch video in a window while reading email or whatever. Not terribly useful, I agree.
But much more common. you can have many widgets running all the time, you can have a boat load of tasks running in any smartphone.
Mostly these affect battery life by keeping your radios up and running, but lots of these run even when you are doing something on the phone, such as surfing or email, or (horrors!) talking.
Why did you feed us a link to the exact same Article as the Summary does?
Did you think that would trick us into reading the full article?
This is Slashdot. We are wise to those ploys.
The Note was a couple of percent faster on renamed benchmark apps, and a whopping 20% faster on normally named benchmark apps. The point is that they were already faster so cheating wasn't even necessary.
Not really. A couple of percent faster is not humanly detectable. 20% is.
Any programmer worth his pay can tune code to achieve 2%.
I'd have thought it would prove the principle that the optimizations aren't app specific.
The optimizations ARE app specific, in that they are specific to all apps except benchmarks.
Granted, you can twist your mind around to see the reasoning behind it, but in doing so you must come to the conclusion that using all 4 cores is so expensive in terms of battery power that running 4 cores is for the most part forbidden. And if forbidden, why have 4 cores?
It locking fore cores to high power mode yielded a 2% advantage in performance this wouldn't be a big deal.
But it yields a 20% performance boost in an app that is already stressing the processor.
Doesn't that mean that the penalty for allowing apps to spin up 4 cores to handle peak load is SO BATTERY INTENSIVE, that Samsung won't allow it?
Isn't that an argument for two cores?
The benchmarking itself seems to be flawed. Samsung wants to benchmark the devices at their full capacity, to see what they are capable of (the higher setting is reached in normal use of some apps anyway). The testers would probably like to do real world comparison tests (and not rely just on numbers). I don't see Samsung doing anything wrong here, even though the benchmarking apps are specifically chosen.
You have a point, that a device should be tested to its highest capacity.
However, if EVERY other application is PREVENTED from achieving that highest capacity the tests are already biased.
And in truth, that is not always a BAD thing. After all, locking the other cores to full power for a test, but preventing that for day to day usage is simply a battery saving feature. Having multiple cores is useful so that other work can be performed at the same time as your phone checks mail or some such.
But on the other hand, why put in special features to defeat the NORMAL operation of the core-switching and allow it ONLY for benchmarks?
After all, if the benchmarks can in fact stress the phones enough to spin up all the Cores, that would be a useful measure of performance, and it would also show what you can expect when you are banging away at some video game. On the other hand, if you can't actually light up all four cores in normal usage, then why have 4 cores at all?
Samsung is clearly defeating some of their battery saving technology for benchmarks, and it amounts to 20% better measurements.
What they have unwittingly done is show us the huge performance penalty this battery saving logic imposes.
Powering up additional cores appears to be hugely expensive in terms of battery power, so expensive, that Samsung won't allow any other software to do it on a routine basis.
Have they just made the case for dual cores more attractive and quad cores less so?
Not that simple. In fact, I've never seen anyone strut up and say "wanna race phones"?
Sure, given two of anything, the natural human thing to do is race them. Turtles, Frogs, even snails.
But when laying out money, people try to get the best buy for the buck, and not knowing how a phone will perform once you get it loaded down with apps, means that they have to turn to something that really stresses the phone over a short period of time hoping to measure the phone's ability to remain future proof a little bit longer.
Not always having the opportunity to load our own software onto a phone and use it for a week, we do the SAME THING that we do with EVERY other product we buy: We read specs.
We read the specs on cameras, cars, computers, TVs, plumbers, and even your box of Cheerios. We even read the expiration dates on a Bottle of Milk. We then choose accordingly.
Samsung saw this and decided to game the system to gain an advantage. Their gain was short lived, and quickly discovered.
Don't take a normal behavior of seeking the best product available for the price, and try to turn it into some petty childish one-upsmanship game. That speaks more about your mindset than normal rational behavior when the market place presents you with choices.
Mod parent up.
That's pretty much the way I read it too.
Old folks don't necessary look at the world as a place where you buy a few shares of Apple or Google and wait for it to grow, or where you throw money into a gambling addiction expecting your luck has to turn someday.
The author tries to spin simple fiscal conservatism as something irrational. But older people know the odds are always in the houses favor, and are less willing to play that game. Sounds like the people with gambling addiction were the people writing the story.
Just as likely, the older folks saw thru the research and a painless way to bet on a big score, something they seldom actually do in
real live.
As for unacceptability to scams, you really only see this in people new to the internet or who never had to deal with dishonest merchants before, perhaps because a deceased loved one took care of that for them in the past. Unless there is an under lying dementia problem old folks are harder to fool than kids, or even 20-somethings.
Market? Are you joking?
With the federal government involved there is no market.
Prices will expand to absorb all available funds.
You buy 30000 devices on one order and you will get discount as well.
Regardless of who makes the devices.
Throw in an advertising deal, "Delta Flys High on the Surface", and you will get an even better price.
What was your point?
Give the same OS, approving a follow on device would only require an fcc certification. Since its a commercial device that will be taken care of.
By that time actual on line use of the device in aircraft willbe allowed. That is already about to be approved for any fcc certified devices.
If fragile ipad can get approved it can't be that big of a deal.
Buying 11,000 Microsoft Surface 2 tablets is not "gave it to us free".
Surface 2 release date is set for October 22, not two years, and these don't have to be certified.
Something that can show your flight maps and NOTAMS today will show the same in two years.
Could be nice way of sidestepping the Chinese and their "rare earth" near-monopoly.
Rare earths used in Earbuds? Who knew?!
They also said they used them for a year with no sign of wear.
Just like every other pair of earbuds.
Meh, it wasn't that big of a deal when I left corporate employ to buy private medical insurance.
Still have it today. I'm lumped in a category of similar size businesses for actuarial purposes.
And I will pay more under obamacare.
Its not the panacea you think. And its not going to be as cheap as you think.
Forbes says it will be almost $7500 per year for a family of four. Time pretty much concurs.
The only way this proves a boon to entrepreneurship is if they skates on the insurance (refuse to buy) and just pay the fine.
And why wouldn't they? The fine is 1/12th of the cost of an actual insurance policy.
If YOU agreed to the terms, and YOUR country makes that illegal, that's YOUR problem.
Maybe YOU committed a crime by agreeing to follow a foreign company's rules.
Or unless you WANT to own one.
This Idea that I have to justify a NEED might work in a top down command economy like North Korea, but even the former Soviet Union doesn't believe in that nonsense any more.
Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.
You're an idiot.
Can you possibly imagine running a internet service where each user gets to pick their own terms? How would you possibly keep track of that?
Do you even think for one minute before you rush in to post something?
How is this unusual?
Don't French websites have the same provisions? How about France24 a popular news site:
These Conditions of Use will be subject to and interpreted in accordance with French law. Any dispute which cannot be resolved by agreement will be referred to the courts of Nanterre. In the event that any of the provisions of the Conditions of Use is held to be null or void, the remaining provisions will automatically be deemed to apply.
How about Russian web sites? Yandex for instance:
10.2. This Agreement shall be regulated and interpreted according to laws of the Russian Federation. Any issues not regulated hereby shall be settled according to Russian law. Any disputes arising out of relations regulated by this Agreement shall be settled as prescribed by applicable Russian laws according to Russian legal standards. In any part of this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, the term “law” shall mean laws of the Russian Federation as well as laws of the country of the User’s location.
People choose these types of restrictions EVERY TIME they sign up or use any site. Its the same everywhere in the world. You play in their arena, you play by their rules. And its not like neither of those examples or 100 others have foreign offices. They both do.
There is no reason Google should have to do anything other than that. The international standard for governance of web sites is that the Home Country Rules.
You agreed to that.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Agreed.
But on the other hand, since nobody has seen Mozumder's photos, any camera he posses is useless as well, according to his rules.
Only an idiot would assume a camera phone is the way to go for anything but the most trivial subset of general purpose photography.
and 99.9% of camera phone shots are never viewed, by anyone but the phone owner, and at least 40% of them aren't even viewed by the owner except to delete them.
Maybe most people don't need a dSLR with the quality of some of the Mirrorless cameras on the market today. There is very little real need for reflex cameras at all, since all they do in introduce another source of vibration.
But to assume that they are useless and no one should have one is just silly.
I don't condone a separate phone for a 4 year old either.
Further, if mom is going to be that uncooperative, she would just take the phone away anyway.
Still, I could probably find a hundred posts on slashdot lamenting the fact that playing with a phone is a solitary activity, which you now seem to endorse, in some perverse sense when it comes to dumb chunks of plastic, but not when something with real educational potential is involved.
4 years old is right in the middle of those years when social skills are being acquired and should be practiced. Putting that age group alone in a room with a box of Legos is exactly the wrong treatment. Sort of like training for a life in their parents basement.
Ok, so French citizens can't read the EULA. Isn't that an indication that the French education system needs reform more than Google's very clear EULA? I'm sure if your comment warranted it I could dig up the french version
I mean, google's policy is written for the much lamented 8th grade education in US Public Schools. If the French can't read that then they probably don't use google's services anyway.
Nothing special?
Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.
French companies would still advertise on Google even if google closed up shop in France entirely. They would just do it elsewhere. Its not that hard.
But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google. So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.
He did post his reason for wanting a four year old to have a phone.
But since you seem to think everyone posting here woes you some justification, I'd like to know what the fuck you are doing here, and why you think you are in a position to make demands. Playing by your rules, nothing less than a 12 page essay, single space college ruled, hand written, blue ball point pen will suffice.