Well it sounded like they found some alarming correlation with some specific rare cancers. So like the other poster said, inconclusive is not the same as a negative result. I'm not sure why you are pretending that inconclusive somehow fits your ridiculous argument.
What you're saying is just not how statistics work. If the general population has a 1% chance of getting a specific type of cancer over 20 years, and a study found that people using cell phones seemed to have a 2% chance of getting cancer, then that group is twice as likely to get cancer as the general population and that would be huge news that consumers would want to know. However, a lot of these small percentages often fall near margin of error, and are thus are inconclusive. I'm not sure why, but you make it sound like in order to prove a link with cancer they needed to show 80% of people using cellphones had cancer or something. That's just not how it works.
Could easily be a combination of things. Also just look at reading, it's much easier to fall asleep after reading a book than reading a bunch of websites. That may too have some to do with the active/passive differences -- but I dont doubt that more than one factor could be working against a computer user to keep them awake.
Why in the world would they ask someone if they felt ill effects from their cell phone? They probably asked how much a person uses their phone, if they use a hands free device and what medical conditions they have among a host of other questions. They dont go around surveying what a bunch of laymen think are the causes of diseases.
Seriously, what the hell kind of comment is that? How does this idiocy get modded up?
What color is the street lamp? I'll bet it's a calming pinkish hue. Most are this color as it's been shown to deter crime. I wonder if it has to do with the melatonin effect.
You're missing the point. Even though they were unsuccessful, the N1 was slated to be available on all US carriers with a discount on at least one of them(T-Mo) if you bought it unlocked. There is no CDMA N900 and AFAIK. And up until now most carriers were not very friendly to the BYOP crowd. So the difference here is Google got them to warm up to the idea, even if just for a short (and ultimately unsuccessful) time.
So there was some significance to this. I'd actually counter that you're looking a bit more like the fanboy in not understanding it/complaining about it. Though I'll grant you the rhetoric that gets tossed around about how X company is gonna revolutionize Y industry is always a bit irritating, even when there is some truth to it.
With T-mobile you can get a cheaper plan if you buy the phone outright, but your point holds true with the AT&T version of the phone I think.
If you buy the phone outright, you pay $50/month, if you buy it subsidized with a 2 year contract it's $80/month.
$80*24 = $1920
Buy phone outright: $529
Buy subsidized phone: $179
So if you spend $350 more now, you save $1920 later for a net gain of $1570.
It's the dirty little secret of the wireless industry. They are subsidizing the phone by loaning you $350 for which you you pay them back over 5 times as much over 2 years. It's usury, and it should be illegal.
I think the same could probably also be said (to a lesser extent) of the hardware vendors. I can't imagine Motorola, Samsung, LG, et al. we're thrilled that HTC was the only maker of the 'official' Google Phone.
To be honest, it seemed like a bad idea from the start. But it's too bad -- the Nexus One is the sleekest and one of the most powerful of the Android phones. I really think it's sexier looking than an iphone from a industrial design perspective.
Really though, the mistake was not getting Verizon and Sprint on board and letting them sell it in their stores. I think Google tried to take too big of a step at once. I still think they can make a significant impact on the way phones are made, sold and used; but they should have gone for baby steps instead of trying to drag the entire industry kicking and screaming into a business model that carriers probably didn't see as mutually beneficial..
Carriers are desperate to differentiate themselves. And with the Android Market they lose both a revenue stream, and a way to differentiate themselves since mobile apps are taken out of their hands. I think they probably saw the Nexus One as a pointless deal that had little to no upside If Google had given them some kinda sweet contract deal, they might have done it, and we would have been one step closer to device portability (with many steps, including technology hurdles, still left to come). But I just got the feeling Google tried to take 10 steps towards device portability and the elimination of the racketeering cartel power of the carriers, and they just were having none of that.
That said, I still am contemplating buying an N1, but I would have liked to see it on Verizon.
Oh and another good quote about them going after the internet already:
YouTube --
Twice has the PTC targeted video-hosting website YouTube in its campaigns and statements. PTC called for NBC to reconsider uploading the uncensored clip of the Saturday Night Live novelty song "Dick in a Box" on NBC's site and YouTube channel.[101][102] In 2008, the PTC released a report The "New" Tube: A Content Analysis of YouTube—the Most Popular Online Video Destination, which praised YouTube for filtering adult content but criticized the site for not filtering profanity and other explicit content from comments sections.[103]
It's not a slippery slope. Apparently you have never heard of the PTC. If you don't think some new group will spring up and play "we're the saviors of morals for everyone," you're deluding yourself. Or perhaps you forget what Janet Jackson's nipples looks like.
FCC chairman Michael Powell stated that the number of indecency complaints to the FCC had risen from 350 in the years 2000 and 2001, to 14,000 in 2002 and 240,000 in 2003.[62] It was also found that the PTC had generated most of the indecency complaints received by the Federal Communications Commission.
Some of those are old criticisms (from 2008) leveled by the developer of Gnash about RTMP and Sorenson Spark specs being left out. But Adobe has since released the RTMP spec but they cant release the Sorenson stuff, as it's not their IP. Kinda a moot point though as SWFs mostly don't use Sorenson codecs anymore.
Certainly you may have other valid complaints as to their deviation, and I cant speak to that. But having some complaints as to how the spec is written don't really equate to dismissing their entire initiative towards opening up the spec. And it certainly isn't reason for Steve Jobs to tell us what software to use.
I'm not sure that's true anymore about programs to play SWF files.
GNU has started developing a free software SWF player called Gnash under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Another player is the GNU LGPL swfdec. However, GNU does not provide financial support for either project.
Scaleform GFx is a commercial alternative SWF player that features full hardware acceleration using the GPU and has high conformance up to Flash 8 and AS2. Scaleform GFx is licensed as a game middleware solution and used by many PC and console 3D games for user interfaces, HUDs, mini games, and video playback.
I havent read anything about Gnash violating any current license. However you may be right about the player but I'm having a hard time finding a definitive answer.
-You hate low uids. Really what does that have to do with anything?
-Apple is cool because the DRM they developed is weak (You've also been around long enough to know that Apple was developing DRM for quicktime pre itunes right?)
-Since the original dev kit iphone was some unusably-lame browser based thing, you somehow count that as a point for open standards.
-You think that open+proprietary = open.
I'm at a loss for why you got modded up, you seem pretty incorrect to me, and you were very rude.
SWF is not entirely closed and your dire predictions seem to stem from misinformation. Please Read:
SWF files can be generated from within several Adobe products: Flash, Flex Builder (an IDE), as well as through MXMLC, a command line application compiler which is part of the freely available Flex SDK. Other than Adobe products, SWFs can be built with open source Motion-Twin ActionScript 2 Compiler (MTASC), the open source Ming library, the free software suite SWFTools, the proprietary SWiSH Max2 and the web-based application BannerSnack. There are also various third party programs that can produce files in this format, such as Multimedia Fusion 2.
Adobe makes available a partial specification of SWF.[7] The document is claimed to be missing "huge amounts" of information needed to completely implement SWF, omitting specifications for RTMP and Sorenson Spark.[8] However, the RTMP specification[9] was released publicly in June 2009, and the Sorenson Spark codec is not Adobe's property. Until May 1, 2008, implementing software that plays SWF was disallowed by the specification's license.[10] On that date, as part of its Open Screen Project, Adobe dropped all such restrictions on the SWF and FLV formats
Not to mention that you know iPhone will always lag waaaayy behind the desktop versions of Flash.
On what basis do you make this claim? iPhone would be an important market segment for them.
Meanwhile, hackers will make Flash on iPhone the preferred target just for bragging rights.
True but hackers already are targeting the iphone for bragging rights, so what's your point?
Flash is a CPU hog on *any* platform, it has to either go on a diet or go away.
Never had a problem with it on Windows, and they just released an update called Gala for Macs because Apple finally opened up the low level access to video acceleration.
PS:Can't wait for the annoying HTML5 ads to replace the annoying Flash ads. Is a HTML5-blocker add-ons in the works?
This is a real concern of mine as well. It seems to this also reveals something interesting though: most anyone that seems to hate Flash doesn't even view it most of the time.
Nuanced in that it is arbitrary. If I write an app for the iPhone that accesses data on the web, that data cant be in any format but an open one? Yeah, I'll bet that is enforced stringently.
Incidentally the SWF format is an open spec. Not the same as other open formats, but his 'nuanced' criticism is a ridiculous one designed to mask his real motivations.
When many apps are moving to cloud based syncing, desktop and mobile apps seem like an arbitrary line in the sand for forgiving yourself for being proprietary. Not only that but the SWF spec is open, and there are open source Flash development tools too. Adobe has other significant open source work too with Flex, Tamarin, BlaseDS, etc etc. Heck they originally wrote the JIT for firefox.
Good spam filters like Gmail's and other have really hidden the problem from public view. People seem to much more freely post their email adresses in forums nowadays with little to no fear of it being harvested. Of course it does get harvested, but they dont care as they don't see it. I guess that's not such a bad thing though, but it's still a strain on the internet as a whole I would think. I wonder what the data size numbers look like rather than % of messages by country. Anyways, my point is just that I wonder if there will be little to no effort going forward from government types or PHB's who don't wanna spend the money for something that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it sounded like they found some alarming correlation with some specific rare cancers. So like the other poster said, inconclusive is not the same as a negative result. I'm not sure why you are pretending that inconclusive somehow fits your ridiculous argument.
What you're saying is just not how statistics work. If the general population has a 1% chance of getting a specific type of cancer over 20 years, and a study found that people using cell phones seemed to have a 2% chance of getting cancer, then that group is twice as likely to get cancer as the general population and that would be huge news that consumers would want to know. However, a lot of these small percentages often fall near margin of error, and are thus are inconclusive. I'm not sure why, but you make it sound like in order to prove a link with cancer they needed to show 80% of people using cellphones had cancer or something. That's just not how it works.
Could easily be a combination of things. Also just look at reading, it's much easier to fall asleep after reading a book than reading a bunch of websites. That may too have some to do with the active/passive differences -- but I dont doubt that more than one factor could be working against a computer user to keep them awake.
Why in the world would they ask someone if they felt ill effects from their cell phone? They probably asked how much a person uses their phone, if they use a hands free device and what medical conditions they have among a host of other questions. They dont go around surveying what a bunch of laymen think are the causes of diseases.
Seriously, what the hell kind of comment is that? How does this idiocy get modded up?
Yep this is exactly how it works. It sets the color temp to 3400K(closer to red) at night and 6000K (closer to blue) during the day.
What color is the street lamp? I'll bet it's a calming pinkish hue. Most are this color as it's been shown to deter crime. I wonder if it has to do with the melatonin effect.
And browser from KDE/Konquerer
You're missing the point. Even though they were unsuccessful, the N1 was slated to be available on all US carriers with a discount on at least one of them(T-Mo) if you bought it unlocked. There is no CDMA N900 and AFAIK. And up until now most carriers were not very friendly to the BYOP crowd. So the difference here is Google got them to warm up to the idea, even if just for a short (and ultimately unsuccessful) time.
So there was some significance to this. I'd actually counter that you're looking a bit more like the fanboy in not understanding it/complaining about it. Though I'll grant you the rhetoric that gets tossed around about how X company is gonna revolutionize Y industry is always a bit irritating, even when there is some truth to it.
Whoops math fail. Forgot to account for the difference. It should read 30*24 = 720, so you are paying $350 up front for $720 in savings.
With T-mobile you can get a cheaper plan if you buy the phone outright, but your point holds true with the AT&T version of the phone I think.
If you buy the phone outright, you pay $50/month, if you buy it subsidized with a 2 year contract it's $80/month.
$80*24 = $1920 Buy phone outright: $529 Buy subsidized phone: $179 So if you spend $350 more now, you save $1920 later for a net gain of $1570.
It's the dirty little secret of the wireless industry. They are subsidizing the phone by loaning you $350 for which you you pay them back over 5 times as much over 2 years. It's usury, and it should be illegal.
I think the same could probably also be said (to a lesser extent) of the hardware vendors. I can't imagine Motorola, Samsung, LG, et al. we're thrilled that HTC was the only maker of the 'official' Google Phone.
.
To be honest, it seemed like a bad idea from the start. But it's too bad -- the Nexus One is the sleekest and one of the most powerful of the Android phones. I really think it's sexier looking than an iphone from a industrial design perspective.
Really though, the mistake was not getting Verizon and Sprint on board and letting them sell it in their stores. I think Google tried to take too big of a step at once. I still think they can make a significant impact on the way phones are made, sold and used; but they should have gone for baby steps instead of trying to drag the entire industry kicking and screaming into a business model that carriers probably didn't see as mutually beneficial.
Carriers are desperate to differentiate themselves. And with the Android Market they lose both a revenue stream, and a way to differentiate themselves since mobile apps are taken out of their hands. I think they probably saw the Nexus One as a pointless deal that had little to no upside If Google had given them some kinda sweet contract deal, they might have done it, and we would have been one step closer to device portability (with many steps, including technology hurdles, still left to come). But I just got the feeling Google tried to take 10 steps towards device portability and the elimination of the racketeering cartel power of the carriers, and they just were having none of that.
That said, I still am contemplating buying an N1, but I would have liked to see it on Verizon.
http://code.google.com/p/android-vnc-viewer/
I dont think there are extra stress--OMG WHY DID U EAT THE LAST SNICKERS BAR WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. (heh, isnt that the point?)
Yeah, you tell em. Multiple studies are redundant. It's like they tell you what you already know!
YouTube -- Twice has the PTC targeted video-hosting website YouTube in its campaigns and statements. PTC called for NBC to reconsider uploading the uncensored clip of the Saturday Night Live novelty song "Dick in a Box" on NBC's site and YouTube channel.[101][102] In 2008, the PTC released a report The "New" Tube: A Content Analysis of YouTube—the Most Popular Online Video Destination, which praised YouTube for filtering adult content but criticized the site for not filtering profanity and other explicit content from comments sections.[103]
FCC chairman Michael Powell stated that the number of indecency complaints to the FCC had risen from 350 in the years 2000 and 2001, to 14,000 in 2002 and 240,000 in 2003.[62] It was also found that the PTC had generated most of the indecency complaints received by the Federal Communications Commission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Television_Council
Some of those are old criticisms (from 2008) leveled by the developer of Gnash about RTMP and Sorenson Spark specs being left out. But Adobe has since released the RTMP spec but they cant release the Sorenson stuff, as it's not their IP. Kinda a moot point though as SWFs mostly don't use Sorenson codecs anymore.
Certainly you may have other valid complaints as to their deviation, and I cant speak to that. But having some complaints as to how the spec is written don't really equate to dismissing their entire initiative towards opening up the spec. And it certainly isn't reason for Steve Jobs to tell us what software to use.
GNU has started developing a free software SWF player called Gnash under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Another player is the GNU LGPL swfdec. However, GNU does not provide financial support for either project. Scaleform GFx is a commercial alternative SWF player that features full hardware acceleration using the GPU and has high conformance up to Flash 8 and AS2. Scaleform GFx is licensed as a game middleware solution and used by many PC and console 3D games for user interfaces, HUDs, mini games, and video playback.
I havent read anything about Gnash violating any current license. However you may be right about the player but I'm having a hard time finding a definitive answer.
Ok let's sum up:
-You hate low uids. Really what does that have to do with anything?
-Apple is cool because the DRM they developed is weak (You've also been around long enough to know that Apple was developing DRM for quicktime pre itunes right?)
-Since the original dev kit iphone was some unusably-lame browser based thing, you somehow count that as a point for open standards.
-You think that open+proprietary = open.
I'm at a loss for why you got modded up, you seem pretty incorrect to me, and you were very rude.
SWF files can be generated from within several Adobe products: Flash, Flex Builder (an IDE), as well as through MXMLC, a command line application compiler which is part of the freely available Flex SDK. Other than Adobe products, SWFs can be built with open source Motion-Twin ActionScript 2 Compiler (MTASC), the open source Ming library, the free software suite SWFTools, the proprietary SWiSH Max2 and the web-based application BannerSnack. There are also various third party programs that can produce files in this format, such as Multimedia Fusion 2.
Adobe makes available a partial specification of SWF.[7] The document is claimed to be missing "huge amounts" of information needed to completely implement SWF, omitting specifications for RTMP and Sorenson Spark.[8] However, the RTMP specification[9] was released publicly in June 2009, and the Sorenson Spark codec is not Adobe's property. Until May 1, 2008, implementing software that plays SWF was disallowed by the specification's license.[10] On that date, as part of its Open Screen Project, Adobe dropped all such restrictions on the SWF and FLV formats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWF
Uh that's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
It may be shrewd business, but "do as I say and not as I do" pretty much fits the hypocrisy label in the world I live in.
Wow, what a spin you put on it. Releasing long held back access is now apparently "served on a table."
Have you ever considered politics?
Not to mention that you know iPhone will always lag waaaayy behind the desktop versions of Flash.
On what basis do you make this claim? iPhone would be an important market segment for them.
Meanwhile, hackers will make Flash on iPhone the preferred target just for bragging rights.
True but hackers already are targeting the iphone for bragging rights, so what's your point?
Flash is a CPU hog on *any* platform, it has to either go on a diet or go away.
Never had a problem with it on Windows, and they just released an update called Gala for Macs because Apple finally opened up the low level access to video acceleration.
PS:Can't wait for the annoying HTML5 ads to replace the annoying Flash ads. Is a HTML5-blocker add-ons in the works?
This is a real concern of mine as well. It seems to this also reveals something interesting though: most anyone that seems to hate Flash doesn't even view it most of the time.
Nuanced in that it is arbitrary. If I write an app for the iPhone that accesses data on the web, that data cant be in any format but an open one? Yeah, I'll bet that is enforced stringently.
Incidentally the SWF format is an open spec. Not the same as other open formats, but his 'nuanced' criticism is a ridiculous one designed to mask his real motivations.
When many apps are moving to cloud based syncing, desktop and mobile apps seem like an arbitrary line in the sand for forgiving yourself for being proprietary. Not only that but the SWF spec is open, and there are open source Flash development tools too. Adobe has other significant open source work too with Flex, Tamarin, BlaseDS, etc etc. Heck they originally wrote the JIT for firefox.
So yeah, his distinction rings hollow and untrue.
Good spam filters like Gmail's and other have really hidden the problem from public view. People seem to much more freely post their email adresses in forums nowadays with little to no fear of it being harvested. Of course it does get harvested, but they dont care as they don't see it. I guess that's not such a bad thing though, but it's still a strain on the internet as a whole I would think. I wonder what the data size numbers look like rather than % of messages by country. Anyways, my point is just that I wonder if there will be little to no effort going forward from government types or PHB's who don't wanna spend the money for something that doesn't seem to be a problem.