RAM chips used in phones are quite a bit more expensive. Low power usage is of paramount importance.
And if it's an issue with stubbornness of Nokia, wanting to milk their customers...why hasn't any other player released even sub $200 smartphone? Symbian ones are nearing $100 mark.
Nokia shipped its billionth phone in 2005. It contributed greatly to the fact that, while a year ago 3 billion people had cellphones, it is 4.6 billion people now, more than half of the planet. And Nokia's most affordable phone isn't even very cheap, at 20 Euro without contract... (supposedly they wish to be able to launch 5 Euro one in a few years)
Nokia has really took to heart its corporate motto, "Connecting people". It has the potential to greatly benefit our world; make it a bit better place. It's perfectly safe to say, IMHO, that Nokia is doing far more for humanity than Apple. The latter is almost irrelevant on such scale, limited to concepts of pleasure and profit. Nokia is perhaps even doing more towards fulfillment of their corporate motto than any other entity that existed.
I think you're looking at this solely from the point of view of western, possibly US, market...
Nokia had always vast spectrum of phones, from very cheap to expensive. Heck, their cheapest phone now costs 20 Euro, without contract (the stated goal of Nokia, supposedly not tongue-in-cheek, is to have 5 Euro phone in a few years). Also, they launched Maemo before iPhone announcement. And reality is that Android has yet to prove itself...
In time when hardware was much slower, screens were much smaller, users were used to "classic" (S30, just launched S40) phone UIs (and because of screen & cpu you didn't have much choice anyway). When smartphone was a very niche product only because of its price, mostly an experiment with the underlying OS, initially. They they built on it for a long time.
Once something takes off it is a bit hard to introduce major UI paradigm changes, I imagine.
And BTW, Maemo is quite old at this point, so it's not like they didn't do anything.
Hm, yeah... a variant of FUD; spreading wonderful stories about a future product just to stall / eradicate the competition; just so potential clients will wait.
What doesn't add up in this case is that Intel, at this point in time, seems quite cautious in their claims about Larabee - they hardly have anything / are themselves very skeptical about it, even in face of major delay & reengineering?
Worse economic position (at least when they were starting to invest in their communication network), much more costly to build and operate...and they still beat you. By a long shot
But hey, I see where you're coming from; "bad, commy" gov interventions, regulated market, etc. (why do people like you can't get over the idea that governments are simply a reflection of...society itself? If the latter seems to be functioning decently, so will the former)
Heh, I don't think you realize what "two times lower population density" in Finland means in context of cellphone carrier.
It means much higher costs per customer. A need for more infrastructure just to cover vast, almost empty areas.
And they still have better service % lower prices. Heck, they even passed a law defining fast broadband access as a right... (and, no doubt, large part of it will be provided wirelessly
Uhm, guys, remember how we were supposed to ship a year ago and said recently we will ship a year from now? Well, add 5 to that now...but we will provide and totally kick ass, promise.
You're using Verizon as an example of fair, beneficial rules to customers? It's not that I suspect you're a shill...I think I'm in the area of influence of Peo's Law ( http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law )
BTW, you conveniently forget that there are countries with excellent coverage (despite having two times lower population density than US, Finland for example), fair prices, great quality of service and...unlocked phones on the network.
On the second thought, you might be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...
The summary almost hints that there do exist popular phone platforms which, while not open source, certainly allowed for quite open development and modification by users for a long time. Many Nokia phones for example.
But I've heard that US carriers didn't really want to offer them in unlocked state, and Nokia wouldn't castrate its products; so the carriers went with RAZR... (and look where Motorola is now)
So this really seems like your local problem. Since Nokia almost completed open sourcing of Symbian and more than 50% of smartphones run that OS, I'd even say that the article is quite irrelevant on the larger scale.
Relying on alien (human) technology to recreate the rest of the body. Technology that exists just now / is available only for a few individuals during this particular visit to Earth.
She was ignorant of recent history and English because the background story depicted in the movie happened once every...10 000 years? (I don't remember exactly)
And I didn't see that assumption - they announced "WE HAVE A SURVIVOR!" just after finding the remains of arm; without any foreknowledge about her anatomy. Apparently such "survival" was obvious for them, also when applied to humans. Which don't have "in-arm backup of brain in advanced DNA" (really, how would that evolve / what's the point?)
NMT dominated the 80's (in fact, it was the biggest cellular network in the world back then...) and the beginning of the 90's there. Introduced almost three decades ago. Rapidly lost relevance with the large scale introduction of GSM networks in the mid 90's (which begun in 91 in Scandinavia BTW)
And you dismiss the most important thing - that the study didn't look at the specific hypothetical mechanisms in detail, just at the prevalence of cancer in relation to cellphones adoption.
It found NOTHING. Which is especially significant given partially sensibly sounding "complications" in the latter part of your post.
Those aren't your actions. Or mine, for that matter (yeah, also a smoker; though stats suggest that quitting at my age is on the border of "negligibly increased risk of cancer", so probably quitting soon)
Those are choices of highly addictive substance. A drug, even if legal.
Not universally; some people actually know how sensitive many modern cellphones are in picking up voice of their user. And that talking loudly is a pointless automatic response to when you can't hear the person at the other end (too bad cellphones, AFAIK, don't feed the voice picked from microphone into speaker...;/ )
Which sometimes ends up funny in some way; I remember one situation when I answered a call...well, not in a restaurant but in a spaghetti bar (still nice place though). I was easily able to have a conversation while practically whispering.
A girl opposite to me was almost disturbed by the uncanny sight;)
I haven't seen DX11, but from what I've seen on DX9 vs DX10, the only way you couldn't tell the difference is if the game graphics are poorly programmed.
Why do you seem to exclude the possibility that DX9 path is excellently programmed?...
You can install SETI and not really know if your computer's help actually mattered should extra-terrestrial life be discovered.
Uhm, I'd guess they would let the "winner" know that...and besides effort of every participant contributed to pinpointing that one hypothetical sample.
As for the rest of what you wrote - too bad you don't realize that you just said, paraphrasing, "if you really want to, really try to induce certain state of mind and/or certain kind of hallucinations, eventually your mind will provide them".
Religion is in totally different ballpark than SETI. The latter aims to actually determine the state of our reality (well, small part of it). The former just give you what you want to hear.
Bad analogy...in SETI it is about knowing better our Universe.
OTOH surviving (it was necessary for their survival...) religions defined their area of expertise as unverifiable for us; faith. They were even historically quite reactionary to progress of knowledge - it undermined them before settling on "we deal with what's beyond".
Alright if you want it like that, why is finding mars men cool and not ghosts or something else?
Are you sure you're not trolling? Nobody seriously talks about "mars men", at least nobody at SETI. I'd guess you're more likely to find such people in their places of cult in the deserts/etc....
And ghosts...well, some people do research that. With the emphasis on research. As far as we can tell, its bollocks... http://www.randi.org/ Left at most for psychology, neuroscience or evolutionary origins of religions.
This isn't an "either-or" scenario. Directing minuscule part of our resources towards SETI doesn't impact in any significant way our other productive activities (as a matter of fact, you can a lot more serious "distractions" of resources in the world then SETI...) I would even guess that large part of people involved in SETI wouldn't find much satisfaction in other, unrelated areas, so they wouldn't be very productive there; etc.
And consider also these two important things:
1) SETI works in tandem with many areas of astronomy/etc. They benefit each other.
2) SETI@home brought distributed computing to the masses. BOINC was their initiative. And just look how many "worthy" projects benefited from this.
You are approaching this from totally wrong angle.
The potential knowledge about existence or non-existence of alien lifeforms (or of ANYTHING, for that matter; except perhaps placebo in some way, but OTOH even this has quantifiable causes and effects) isn't influenced by whether or not you "believe" in them, but by actually checking the possibility (and it's not like we direct a lot of resources toward it that could go elsewhere...)
As for the motivation why we would want to do it, so many things possible here; greater understanding of Universe, of our place in it and of Earth and ourselves ultimately. Also long-term existential issues on one hand and potential for mutual benefit for the other. Some might even wish to see the likely changes it would bring to our world.
SETI@home is doing its small part in that, limited to very close stellar neighborhood and to technological civilizations that use radio waves. Even if won't find anything with this methods (which is extremely likely IMHO), it would be an important data point in answering the issues I outlined above.
BTW, why are you so skeptical about any alien life, anywhere in the Universe? Heck, even in our Solar System there are at least four candidates for extraterrestrial life (and that's when limiting ourselves to organic chemistry, basically). Given how unimaginably (really, our mind can't comprehend the vastness of space and number of stars and planets) immense the Universe is, I find the possibility that we are the only place with life extremely unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
RAM chips used in phones are quite a bit more expensive. Low power usage is of paramount importance.
And if it's an issue with stubbornness of Nokia, wanting to milk their customers...why hasn't any other player released even sub $200 smartphone? Symbian ones are nearing $100 mark.
Nokia shipped its billionth phone in 2005. It contributed greatly to the fact that, while a year ago 3 billion people had cellphones, it is 4.6 billion people now, more than half of the planet. And Nokia's most affordable phone isn't even very cheap, at 20 Euro without contract... (supposedly they wish to be able to launch 5 Euro one in a few years)
Nokia has really took to heart its corporate motto, "Connecting people". It has the potential to greatly benefit our world; make it a bit better place. It's perfectly safe to say, IMHO, that Nokia is doing far more for humanity than Apple. The latter is almost irrelevant on such scale, limited to concepts of pleasure and profit. Nokia is perhaps even doing more towards fulfillment of their corporate motto than any other entity that existed.
I think you're looking at this solely from the point of view of western, possibly US, market...
Nokia had always vast spectrum of phones, from very cheap to expensive. Heck, their cheapest phone now costs 20 Euro, without contract (the stated goal of Nokia, supposedly not tongue-in-cheek, is to have 5 Euro phone in a few years). Also, they launched Maemo before iPhone announcement. And reality is that Android has yet to prove itself...
Nokia had Maemo before Apple had iPhone OS.
Why didn't they do this years ago?
Because they launched years ago.
In time when hardware was much slower, screens were much smaller, users were used to "classic" (S30, just launched S40) phone UIs (and because of screen & cpu you didn't have much choice anyway). When smartphone was a very niche product only because of its price, mostly an experiment with the underlying OS, initially. They they built on it for a long time.
Once something takes off it is a bit hard to introduce major UI paradigm changes, I imagine.
And BTW, Maemo is quite old at this point, so it's not like they didn't do anything.
Hm, yeah... a variant of FUD; spreading wonderful stories about a future product just to stall / eradicate the competition; just so potential clients will wait.
What doesn't add up in this case is that Intel, at this point in time, seems quite cautious in their claims about Larabee - they hardly have anything / are themselves very skeptical about it, even in face of major delay & reengineering?
This is not my position, this is reality...
Worse economic position (at least when they were starting to invest in their communication network), much more costly to build and operate...and they still beat you. By a long shot
But hey, I see where you're coming from; "bad, commy" gov interventions, regulated market, etc. (why do people like you can't get over the idea that governments are simply a reflection of...society itself? If the latter seems to be functioning decently, so will the former)
Heh, I don't think you realize what "two times lower population density" in Finland means in context of cellphone carrier.
It means much higher costs per customer. A need for more infrastructure just to cover vast, almost empty areas.
And they still have better service % lower prices. Heck, they even passed a law defining fast broadband access as a right... (and, no doubt, large part of it will be provided wirelessly
A nicer way of saying:
Uhm, guys, remember how we were supposed to ship a year ago and said recently we will ship a year from now? Well, add 5 to that now...but we will provide and totally kick ass, promise.
You're using Verizon as an example of fair, beneficial rules to customers? It's not that I suspect you're a shill...I think I'm in the area of influence of Peo's Law ( http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law )
BTW, you conveniently forget that there are countries with excellent coverage (despite having two times lower population density than US, Finland for example), fair prices, great quality of service and...unlocked phones on the network.
On the second thought, you might be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...
The summary almost hints that there do exist popular phone platforms which, while not open source, certainly allowed for quite open development and modification by users for a long time. Many Nokia phones for example.
But I've heard that US carriers didn't really want to offer them in unlocked state, and Nokia wouldn't castrate its products; so the carriers went with RAZR... (and look where Motorola is now)
So this really seems like your local problem. Since Nokia almost completed open sourcing of Symbian and more than 50% of smartphones run that OS, I'd even say that the article is quite irrelevant on the larger scale.
Relying on alien (human) technology to recreate the rest of the body. Technology that exists just now / is available only for a few individuals during this particular visit to Earth.
Useless.
She was ignorant of recent history and English because the background story depicted in the movie happened once every...10 000 years? (I don't remember exactly)
And I didn't see that assumption - they announced "WE HAVE A SURVIVOR!" just after finding the remains of arm; without any foreknowledge about her anatomy. Apparently such "survival" was obvious for them, also when applied to humans. Which don't have "in-arm backup of brain in advanced DNA" (really, how would that evolve / what's the point?)
Well, not only body; it went also into "rubbish" territory by recreating the brain...
NMT dominated the 80's (in fact, it was the biggest cellular network in the world back then...) and the beginning of the 90's there. Introduced almost three decades ago. Rapidly lost relevance with the large scale introduction of GSM networks in the mid 90's (which begun in 91 in Scandinavia BTW)
And you dismiss the most important thing - that the study didn't look at the specific hypothetical mechanisms in detail, just at the prevalence of cancer in relation to cellphones adoption.
It found NOTHING. Which is especially significant given partially sensibly sounding "complications" in the latter part of your post.
Those aren't your actions. Or mine, for that matter (yeah, also a smoker; though stats suggest that quitting at my age is on the border of "negligibly increased risk of cancer", so probably quitting soon)
Those are choices of highly addictive substance. A drug, even if legal.
Not universally; some people actually know how sensitive many modern cellphones are in picking up voice of their user. And that talking loudly is a pointless automatic response to when you can't hear the person at the other end (too bad cellphones, AFAIK, don't feed the voice picked from microphone into speaker... ;/ )
Which sometimes ends up funny in some way; I remember one situation when I answered a call...well, not in a restaurant but in a spaghetti bar (still nice place though). I was easily able to have a conversation while practically whispering.
A girl opposite to me was almost disturbed by the uncanny sight ;)
Look, conspiracy theorists/etc. simply like to think they're smart, that they have the mental capacity to see the reality clearer than anybody else.
Obviously they start to get unpleasant when you remind them that they're stupid, even if only by mentioning "spooky terms".
BTW, regarding this thread...is there ANY place with sensible reviews of bluetooth headsets?
As for the actual printer, I've learned to buy LASER printers. They have a high initial cost but low-priced ink (~$50 for 5000 pages).
Since laser printers don't need any ink at all, I'd say somebody is ripping you off.
I haven't seen DX11, but from what I've seen on DX9 vs DX10, the only way you couldn't tell the difference is if the game graphics are poorly programmed.
Why do you seem to exclude the possibility that DX9 path is excellently programmed?...
You can install SETI and not really know if your computer's help actually mattered should extra-terrestrial life be discovered.
Uhm, I'd guess they would let the "winner" know that...and besides effort of every participant contributed to pinpointing that one hypothetical sample.
As for the rest of what you wrote - too bad you don't realize that you just said, paraphrasing, "if you really want to, really try to induce certain state of mind and/or certain kind of hallucinations, eventually your mind will provide them".
Religion is in totally different ballpark than SETI. The latter aims to actually determine the state of our reality (well, small part of it). The former just give you what you want to hear.
Bad analogy...in SETI it is about knowing better our Universe.
OTOH surviving (it was necessary for their survival...) religions defined their area of expertise as unverifiable for us; faith. They were even historically quite reactionary to progress of knowledge - it undermined them before settling on "we deal with what's beyond".
( yes, the above post of mine should start with
And why alien life and not something else
...)
And one another thing
Alright if you want it like that, why is finding mars men cool and not ghosts or something else?
Are you sure you're not trolling? Nobody seriously talks about "mars men", at least nobody at SETI. I'd guess you're more likely to find such people in their places of cult in the deserts/etc....
And ghosts...well, some people do research that. With the emphasis on research. As far as we can tell, its bollocks...
http://www.randi.org/
Left at most for psychology, neuroscience or evolutionary origins of religions.
This isn't an "either-or" scenario. Directing minuscule part of our resources towards SETI doesn't impact in any significant way our other productive activities (as a matter of fact, you can a lot more serious "distractions" of resources in the world then SETI...) I would even guess that large part of people involved in SETI wouldn't find much satisfaction in other, unrelated areas, so they wouldn't be very productive there; etc.
And consider also these two important things:
1) SETI works in tandem with many areas of astronomy/etc. They benefit each other.
2) SETI@home brought distributed computing to the masses. BOINC was their initiative. And just look how many "worthy" projects benefited from this.
You are approaching this from totally wrong angle.
The potential knowledge about existence or non-existence of alien lifeforms (or of ANYTHING, for that matter; except perhaps placebo in some way, but OTOH even this has quantifiable causes and effects) isn't influenced by whether or not you "believe" in them, but by actually checking the possibility (and it's not like we direct a lot of resources toward it that could go elsewhere...)
As for the motivation why we would want to do it, so many things possible here; greater understanding of Universe, of our place in it and of Earth and ourselves ultimately. Also long-term existential issues on one hand and potential for mutual benefit for the other. Some might even wish to see the likely changes it would bring to our world.
SETI@home is doing its small part in that, limited to very close stellar neighborhood and to technological civilizations that use radio waves. Even if won't find anything with this methods (which is extremely likely IMHO), it would be an important data point in answering the issues I outlined above.
BTW, why are you so skeptical about any alien life, anywhere in the Universe? Heck, even in our Solar System there are at least four candidates for extraterrestrial life (and that's when limiting ourselves to organic chemistry, basically). Given how unimaginably (really, our mind can't comprehend the vastness of space and number of stars and planets) immense the Universe is, I find the possibility that we are the only place with life extremely unlikely.