It's one thing if you're trying to cater to e.g. developing economies or emerging ones (yes, there's a difference) but windows 8 doesn't allow much flexibility in that department due to other hardware requirements. For example, it's basically impossible to run windows (rt or regular) on anything less than 32gb of nv storage, with dare I say a practical minimum of 64gb.
Their best bet would be to put WP8 on the lower end tablets if anything.
Well let me know when the IRS starts auditing wow players, many of whom have a lot more money worth of wow gold than I have in my bank account, never mind bitcoins.
Effectively bitcoin is the same thing as wow gold at the moment.
Not a bad idea by any stretch, if you already have them. Personally, I still have no faith in the bitcoin. Though to be honest, when I first started looking at bitcoins last october, they were $11 each, and I thought they were overvalued then. Now (as I write this) they are $86.71 a peice. Given that yesterday afternoon they were $89 something each, the price does seem a bit volatile, however it has made many similar fluctuations along the way up, so that doesn't mean it has peaked. If I had bought say a thousand worth and then sold them today, that is upwards of $8,000 of income.
Where it will head from here is anybody's guess. I don't believe I am any good at currency speculation by any stretch, but I haven't seen any indication that they have topped out. Still, I wouldn't buy any myself, nor would I suggest anybody else do that either.
I actually mined some bitcoins to pay for VPN and seedbox services (I make more than enough money in bitcoins per month to pay for these) using GPU power I already have (one 5750 and one 7850) at a combined 600MH/s, which at the current exchange rate yields about $100 USD per month. Thinking of using my spare bitcoins to buy an entry level asic, which will yield ten times that amount at about one tenth of the energy consumption.
If the bitcoin does end up collapsing, I haven't really lost anything other than idle GPU time. Where I live (Arizona) electricity is cheap, and based on my current metrics (which I am able to monitor in 5 second intervals btw) I have probably thus far spent $5 on mining bitcoins over the four month span that I first started mining them. A general rule of thumb in investing is that you should never invest so much that if you lost it all, you wouldn't be able to afford to keep your house. I don't think I'll miss $5. Best of all, unless I convert it into real dollars, it'll never be taxed. Meanwhile, as time passes there are more and more goods/services that I can buy with bitcoins.
If everybody does exactly what I'm doing, the value of bitcoins will only increase because more people will have a stake in them.
And before any eco activists complain about my carbon footprint: My area is nuclear powered. Nuclear has an almost non-existent carbon footprint and is dirt cheap. (I'm not one to concern myself with carbon in any case - call me an anti-social insensitive clod or whatever incorrect label you want, but I just don't see the point worrying about it - see my recent comment history for an explanation.) You can thank the government if your area isn't nuclear powered.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but that is a load of crap. There are a lot of professions for the "brightest" outside of business and tech that not only pay well but they can also enjoy.
As for not being able to enjoy a technology job, that goes the same as with everything else. Those who can simply understand technology will end up at the help desk. Those with vision will probably end up designing and implementing.
I think what he's saying is that not everybody lives in a perfect neighborhood, not everybody lives in "the hood" (as it seems you do based on your description) which means many people live somewhere in between. That said, I think having a choice is pretty nifty. Saying that he shouldn't have a choice because we need to fund poor poor USPS and give them that monopoly they so well deserve, or because walmart is evil for the crime of making things affordable for the poor and therefore shouldn't be permitted to exist because they make other businesses have to compete, or....is kind of a dick move.
That sounds like a distinction between the authentication concepts of "what you are" (fingerprint, retina scan, dna) "what you have" (physical key, smartcard) vs "what you know" (password).
I'd have a feeling that it would come down to a "reasonable person" standard. For example, would a reasonable person be able to memorize a 2048 bit RSA key? If not, then that key goes from being something you know to something you have.
Ultimately that would be up to the courts to decide, but in my objective opinion, that's where it would fall.
Well we've seen these sudden collapses in the past (aka mass extinctions) and it wasn't just microscale life that survived. Dinosaurs as they existed ceased to exist, but their offspring (birds) kept on going.
I don't know whether or not our population (as a single species, vs dinosaurs which were many species) is larger than theirs, but I suspect it is. However we've already adapted to the most horrid conditions. Indigenous people in the Andes mountains compared to most populations are shorter, have a higher lung capacity, and thicker skin, which enables them to comfortably walk around barefoot in biting cold with 66% of the oxygen of sea level. These adaptations are known to have come within a single generation.
That just shows that even without our technology, we've been able to make these adaptations pretty quickly. With as relatively frail as we view ourselves, we're rather resilient in that respect. We can survive almost entirely off of plants (indigenous people in India do so) or almost entirely off of animals (e.g. Canadian Inuit or Australian Aboriginals - notice both lived in extreme temperate ranges.) The herbivorous cultures weren't as healthy as the carnivorous ones, but they were still fruitful enough.
BTW, disclaimer: We probably do have a contribution to global warming, though I'm not sure to what extent. However, I don't really think it matters. If the pangea ultima theory is correct, it is inevitable that we will lose the ice caps and the planet will be much warmer than it is now, whether humans existed or not. Very large animals thrived in these conditions in the past, so I don't think that means inevitable doom either.
I was actually in agreement with what he said anyways, but it occurred to me about a minute later with regard to the up front cost of the Verizon phone. Can't edit posts after they are submitted though, so I just let it be.
For me, sprint's network was painfully slow. I live in the 6th largest city in the US, where sprint offers no 4g coverage. Worse, their 4g is slower than T-Mobile 3g, and their 3g is slower than edge.
Also, with sprint I paid $300 a month for 1500 minutes and unlimited but painfully slow data. With T-Mobile I pay $120 for superior service. I wouldn't dare say sprint has a better price.
It's a gsm/umts phone, which is easy to move to another carrier, you simply replace the Sim card. No reconfiguration, flashing, or hacks off any kind, just swap it out and you are on another carrier.
I wouldn't say so. Local regulations and permit procedures are what stop a lot of broadband deployments. Google chose KC for their fiber largely because of the lack of regulation. FIOS deployment has already halted largely due to regulations.
The regulatory cost puts a heavy thumb on the side of the scale that discourages investment. Indeed, as fellow Forbes contributor Elise Ackerman pointed out last week, Google has explicitly said that part of what made Kansas City attractive was the lack of excessive infrastructure regulation, and the willingness and ability of the city to waive or otherwise expedite the requirements that were on the books.(Despite the city’s promises to bend over backwards for the project, she notes, there have still been expensive regulatory delays that promoted no public values.)
Also, capitalism did to microsoft what the government could not: It broke internet explorer's stranglehold on the web, and microsoft's monopoly on the desktop space is quickly falling apart. Although the EU regulations are more stringent, they couldn't get consumers to ultimately decide to switch to another browser when given the choice, until the likes of Firefox and Chrome became what they are today. They also can't get consumers to decide to buy Windows N instead of the non-N editions. Microsoft is annoyed (and rightly so) that they have to keep a separate SKU for it, even while nobody buys it anyways.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The problem is that there isn't a contract to begin with? That *is* what t-mobile is doing here; there is no contract. I'd see not having a contract as an advantage. Bring your existing AT&T phone over and try it out. Service doesn't work for you? Go ahead and return to AT&T at any time you'd like.
As I experienced with sprint, a contract doesn't guarantee quality of service. Like the t-mobile CEO said in his press conference: When you're in a contract, the carrier only has to be nice to you once every 23 months.
I'd say so. I just switched to the new plan this morning. I still even have roaming access, which I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't available on MVNO's.
Yeah I'll take the blame for that gaffe, as I originally typed that. Though I wish the editor kept my comment about the Nexus 4 and how it can be hacked to work with t-mobiles LTE.
I think the down payment option is a good deal. However not everybody agrees, and I think the reason why is kind of stupid.
Techcrunch basically attacks t-mobile over this one because if you want to change carriers, you're still stuck with a $600 (or whatever) phone, as opposed to a $350 early termination fee.
I'm wondering if they have a bone to pick with t-mobile, because a few hours ago slashdot posted an article from them about how t-mobile UK are scamming customers with premium SMS.
The only possible way I could see the light in this statement would be if you could bring that phone to any of the other major carriers. Sadly, as far as major carriers, your only other option is AT&T. Though you can get some pretty good deals with the MVNO's, their coverage isn't as good. Personally I'd prefer to just own the phone than be in a contract.
I had similar reservations about t-mobile when I switched to them from Sprint last month, namely due to my dad having the same issues. However I have other relatives who are with them who told me that it's pretty good service now. So I switched, and it works pretty damn good.
Also, I haven't done my research on their 3G bands, but I do know that on XDA they recently talked about how they've activated the more standardized bands in most markets. It seems to hold true, because I can get full 3G speeds on my ipad 2 when I put my t-mobile sim in it, whereas supposedly this wasn't possible a few months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
By my calculation, that is 223,000 bolts of lightning. Great scott!
It's one thing if you're trying to cater to e.g. developing economies or emerging ones (yes, there's a difference) but windows 8 doesn't allow much flexibility in that department due to other hardware requirements. For example, it's basically impossible to run windows (rt or regular) on anything less than 32gb of nv storage, with dare I say a practical minimum of 64gb.
Their best bet would be to put WP8 on the lower end tablets if anything.
Well let me know when the IRS starts auditing wow players, many of whom have a lot more money worth of wow gold than I have in my bank account, never mind bitcoins.
Effectively bitcoin is the same thing as wow gold at the moment.
Not a bad idea by any stretch, if you already have them. Personally, I still have no faith in the bitcoin. Though to be honest, when I first started looking at bitcoins last october, they were $11 each, and I thought they were overvalued then. Now (as I write this) they are $86.71 a peice. Given that yesterday afternoon they were $89 something each, the price does seem a bit volatile, however it has made many similar fluctuations along the way up, so that doesn't mean it has peaked. If I had bought say a thousand worth and then sold them today, that is upwards of $8,000 of income.
Where it will head from here is anybody's guess. I don't believe I am any good at currency speculation by any stretch, but I haven't seen any indication that they have topped out. Still, I wouldn't buy any myself, nor would I suggest anybody else do that either.
I actually mined some bitcoins to pay for VPN and seedbox services (I make more than enough money in bitcoins per month to pay for these) using GPU power I already have (one 5750 and one 7850) at a combined 600MH/s, which at the current exchange rate yields about $100 USD per month. Thinking of using my spare bitcoins to buy an entry level asic, which will yield ten times that amount at about one tenth of the energy consumption.
If the bitcoin does end up collapsing, I haven't really lost anything other than idle GPU time. Where I live (Arizona) electricity is cheap, and based on my current metrics (which I am able to monitor in 5 second intervals btw) I have probably thus far spent $5 on mining bitcoins over the four month span that I first started mining them. A general rule of thumb in investing is that you should never invest so much that if you lost it all, you wouldn't be able to afford to keep your house. I don't think I'll miss $5. Best of all, unless I convert it into real dollars, it'll never be taxed. Meanwhile, as time passes there are more and more goods/services that I can buy with bitcoins.
If everybody does exactly what I'm doing, the value of bitcoins will only increase because more people will have a stake in them.
And before any eco activists complain about my carbon footprint: My area is nuclear powered. Nuclear has an almost non-existent carbon footprint and is dirt cheap. (I'm not one to concern myself with carbon in any case - call me an anti-social insensitive clod or whatever incorrect label you want, but I just don't see the point worrying about it - see my recent comment history for an explanation.) You can thank the government if your area isn't nuclear powered.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but that is a load of crap. There are a lot of professions for the "brightest" outside of business and tech that not only pay well but they can also enjoy.
As for not being able to enjoy a technology job, that goes the same as with everything else. Those who can simply understand technology will end up at the help desk. Those with vision will probably end up designing and implementing.
I think what he's saying is that not everybody lives in a perfect neighborhood, not everybody lives in "the hood" (as it seems you do based on your description) which means many people live somewhere in between. That said, I think having a choice is pretty nifty. Saying that he shouldn't have a choice because we need to fund poor poor USPS and give them that monopoly they so well deserve, or because walmart is evil for the crime of making things affordable for the poor and therefore shouldn't be permitted to exist because they make other businesses have to compete, or ....is kind of a dick move.
That works. AES256 it with a password consisting of a short (e.g. 30 character) sentence.
GG DHS.
That sounds like a distinction between the authentication concepts of "what you are" (fingerprint, retina scan, dna) "what you have" (physical key, smartcard) vs "what you know" (password).
I'd have a feeling that it would come down to a "reasonable person" standard. For example, would a reasonable person be able to memorize a 2048 bit RSA key? If not, then that key goes from being something you know to something you have.
Ultimately that would be up to the courts to decide, but in my objective opinion, that's where it would fall.
Well we've seen these sudden collapses in the past (aka mass extinctions) and it wasn't just microscale life that survived. Dinosaurs as they existed ceased to exist, but their offspring (birds) kept on going.
I don't know whether or not our population (as a single species, vs dinosaurs which were many species) is larger than theirs, but I suspect it is. However we've already adapted to the most horrid conditions. Indigenous people in the Andes mountains compared to most populations are shorter, have a higher lung capacity, and thicker skin, which enables them to comfortably walk around barefoot in biting cold with 66% of the oxygen of sea level. These adaptations are known to have come within a single generation.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/18/3151.full.pdf
That just shows that even without our technology, we've been able to make these adaptations pretty quickly. With as relatively frail as we view ourselves, we're rather resilient in that respect. We can survive almost entirely off of plants (indigenous people in India do so) or almost entirely off of animals (e.g. Canadian Inuit or Australian Aboriginals - notice both lived in extreme temperate ranges.) The herbivorous cultures weren't as healthy as the carnivorous ones, but they were still fruitful enough.
Don't go over it if you don't want to. I just find it interesting.
BTW, disclaimer: We probably do have a contribution to global warming, though I'm not sure to what extent. However, I don't really think it matters. If the pangea ultima theory is correct, it is inevitable that we will lose the ice caps and the planet will be much warmer than it is now, whether humans existed or not. Very large animals thrived in these conditions in the past, so I don't think that means inevitable doom either.
Fun fact: Water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
The 500GB was a typo, but the 2.5GB is in fact correct.
Me neither because lte is a battery hog. But it is there if you feel like tinkering.
I was actually in agreement with what he said anyways, but it occurred to me about a minute later with regard to the up front cost of the Verizon phone. Can't edit posts after they are submitted though, so I just let it be.
You keep jellybean 4.2.2 but downgrade the radio to a version that has lte.
For me, sprint's network was painfully slow. I live in the 6th largest city in the US, where sprint offers no 4g coverage. Worse, their 4g is slower than T-Mobile 3g, and their 3g is slower than edge.
Also, with sprint I paid $300 a month for 1500 minutes and unlimited but painfully slow data. With T-Mobile I pay $120 for superior service. I wouldn't dare say sprint has a better price.
It's a gsm/umts phone, which is easy to move to another carrier, you simply replace the Sim card. No reconfiguration, flashing, or hacks off any kind, just swap it out and you are on another carrier.
I wouldn't say so. Local regulations and permit procedures are what stop a lot of broadband deployments. Google chose KC for their fiber largely because of the lack of regulation. FIOS deployment has already halted largely due to regulations.
The regulatory cost puts a heavy thumb on the side of the scale that discourages investment. Indeed, as fellow Forbes contributor Elise Ackerman pointed out last week, Google has explicitly said that part of what made Kansas City attractive was the lack of excessive infrastructure regulation, and the willingness and ability of the city to waive or otherwise expedite the requirements that were on the books.(Despite the city’s promises to bend over backwards for the project, she notes, there have still been expensive regulatory delays that promoted no public values.)
http://larrydownes.com/what-google-fiber-gig-u-and-us-ignite-teach-us-about-the-painful-cost-of-legacy-regulation/
Also, capitalism did to microsoft what the government could not: It broke internet explorer's stranglehold on the web, and microsoft's monopoly on the desktop space is quickly falling apart. Although the EU regulations are more stringent, they couldn't get consumers to ultimately decide to switch to another browser when given the choice, until the likes of Firefox and Chrome became what they are today. They also can't get consumers to decide to buy Windows N instead of the non-N editions. Microsoft is annoyed (and rightly so) that they have to keep a separate SKU for it, even while nobody buys it anyways.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The problem is that there isn't a contract to begin with? That *is* what t-mobile is doing here; there is no contract. I'd see not having a contract as an advantage. Bring your existing AT&T phone over and try it out. Service doesn't work for you? Go ahead and return to AT&T at any time you'd like.
As I experienced with sprint, a contract doesn't guarantee quality of service. Like the t-mobile CEO said in his press conference: When you're in a contract, the carrier only has to be nice to you once every 23 months.
I'd say so. I just switched to the new plan this morning. I still even have roaming access, which I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't available on MVNO's.
In case you haven't noticed (by reading the summary) you can now do these things with t-mobile.
http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/stupid-europeans-or-are-they-americans.jpg
Yeah I'll take the blame for that gaffe, as I originally typed that. Though I wish the editor kept my comment about the Nexus 4 and how it can be hacked to work with t-mobiles LTE.
I think the down payment option is a good deal. However not everybody agrees, and I think the reason why is kind of stupid.
Techcrunch basically attacks t-mobile over this one because if you want to change carriers, you're still stuck with a $600 (or whatever) phone, as opposed to a $350 early termination fee.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/26/t-mobiles-uncarrier-pricing-isnt-so-different-from-the-contract-devil-you-already-know/
I'm wondering if they have a bone to pick with t-mobile, because a few hours ago slashdot posted an article from them about how t-mobile UK are scamming customers with premium SMS.
The only possible way I could see the light in this statement would be if you could bring that phone to any of the other major carriers. Sadly, as far as major carriers, your only other option is AT&T. Though you can get some pretty good deals with the MVNO's, their coverage isn't as good. Personally I'd prefer to just own the phone than be in a contract.
I had similar reservations about t-mobile when I switched to them from Sprint last month, namely due to my dad having the same issues. However I have other relatives who are with them who told me that it's pretty good service now. So I switched, and it works pretty damn good.
Also, I haven't done my research on their 3G bands, but I do know that on XDA they recently talked about how they've activated the more standardized bands in most markets. It seems to hold true, because I can get full 3G speeds on my ipad 2 when I put my t-mobile sim in it, whereas supposedly this wasn't possible a few months ago.