Perhaps it's Andy Kaufman running clearwire and he sits outside houses, throttles their internet, then gets loads of entertainment by watching people run around the house with their routers!
but which still clearly reflects the will of the people.
It reflects the will of SOME people, who could be FEWER than those who have the opposite opinion. When you can have situations where the FEW can rule the MANY you cannot have a democracy. You can argue all you want that in 2000 Bush winning having "just" half a million votes LESS than Gore is not a big deal, and that Bush was "not the government", but you insult my intelligence when you are trying to claim this fits the definition of "Democracy".
As I understand it, Americans directly elect most of their representatives with a few exceptions such as the president who is now "indirectly" elected by the people, and various positions that the government is empowered to appoint people to.
democracy means government by the people.
Do I really have to explain things here, you don't see the contradiction? We are not talking about a token President like in a parliamentary system, simply put Americans don't elect their government, thus they don't have a "government by the people". If you haven't done so, it is worth reading how the electoral college works. The "winner takes all" states, the electoral allocations, the cases of "faithless" electors, all make up for a very... hmm... "interesting" system.
I'm confused about the part where we don't elect our representatives. State representatives, senators and mayors generally run on a straight plurality or majority system. Likewise US representatives and senators. The only significant representative we don't elect directly that i can think of is the President, and in that case we (effectively) vote on representatives on a straight plurality system who then vote on the President.
So, the "only" thing you don't elect is the president. Given the fact that it is a presidential system, you are basically "just" not electing the government. Yeah, no biggie (it would be a VERY long discussion about the historical reasons for this and whether it is good or bad), but the simple fact is it does not fit the description "democracy".
Many people think that majority rule is a fundamental part of democracy, but it doesn't _have_ to be.
Again, you are re-defining the word just because you want to include something that does not belong. It is a Greek word, whose meaning for me, Greek being my native tongue, is very clear. Giving you an analogy, many people think US of A refers to the 50 states that make up a federal republic. But it doesn't HAVE to be those 50 states. I would like to include Mexico in the term.
Why is it so important for you to call it a democracy, going as far as to stretch a 2500 year old term? A lot of people even prefer it over a democracy, they like their electoral college...
On three occasions so far, 1878, 1888, 2000 the party that won the elections was 2nd in total votes. You can't possibly call the US a representative democracy when you don't vote for your representatives, but only some "electors" who are not really obliged to vote the way they had advertised.
I think you are wrong, I don't see the US system covered by the wikipedia definition for democracy, or any other "sane" definition I have heard. Some people will claim the US is indeed a "representative democracy", however that cannot be correct, since the US citizens do not elect their representatives. Instead, the elect the people who will elect their representatives. In fact, the very definition of the word democracy, "rule of the people", would imply that a democracy requires the majority vote of the people to govern. Well, this is simply not true in the US system, where on at least three occasions so far (1878, 1888, 2000) the party that one the elections was the party that was 2nd in total votes. I remember my wife telling me a very amusing story about a lecture on one of her Political Science courses at a NY university, where the professor defined the "Democracy" as a sum of some basic features (5 or 10 I don't remember). Then went on to "rate" each country on a "democratic scale" of 1-10, and ranked the US on top with a score of 10. When the students started asking how could we give it a 10 when half the features you mentioned just 10 minutes ago as part of the definition of democracy are not compatible with the US system, she just answered something along the lines of "the US is the measure for Democracy"... It was much more amusing when I remembered the details, but the main problems with the definition of democracy were the above two I mentioned (you don't elect your representatives, the plurality vote party can lose) and how lobbying is implemented.
I mean, seriously, who plays the plain rock paper scissors any more? Plus, for the augmented game, a winning strategy for the computer is much easier: if player's http referrer is slashdot, always choose lizard to poison Spock..
My head hurts with your comments, as I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say from the gibberish you write. Phrases like "focused field of depth" have absolutely no meaning, other statements are simply wrong (for the second time, polarized lenses DO NOT filter frequencies) and then there is a number of statements that almost have a meaning, but not much (like the motorized Z-axis thing etc). I completely lost you with the "third angle or field of depth", that made no sense whatsoever. Things are simple, all the stereoscopic methods (including the old anaglyph method - red blue as you say) try to feed each eye with a different image to emulate the fact that each of your eyes does indeed normally see things from a slightly different angle. That is enough for most (? don't know the statistics on this, judging from people I know) people to make them believe things are leaping out of the screen. For me, the effect is the strongest sitting at the middle of an Imax theater, so that the 3D screen fills completely my field of view. Then, for other people the fact that their eyes have to maintain focus at a specific distance to see all the supposedly 3D items, is enough to spoil the effect.
The guy bought a COMPAQ! How can you call someone a system builder for upgrading a graphics card and adding 2 monitors to a pre-built low-end Compaq? Also, how can you post on Slashdot as "news" a forum post that gets so much bashing on that same forum thread? Oh, right, sorry CmdrTaco, didn't notice you there...
Since I had read about it when HardOCP had the also unfortunate idea to post it on their front page, I will give a quick overview of the things that were seriously wrong: -The title was something about a "gaming beast", when it is a VERY low end PC with a low end graphics card. -People noted that even when the system was bought, you could do much better than the Compaq machine if you selected the components yourself and should definitely do a little better in the spec department. -People cited threads from 2007 where people where building triple screen machines for less than $1000. -The author DOESN'T GAME ON 3 monitors, and hasn't even enabled eyefinity. There goes the "triple screen gaming beast". -The author makes absurd claims about the fps he gets from games given his setup (even considering the fact he runs them on only 1 monitor).
And there was an amazing comment somewhere in there from the Author, who says something like his machine is a Lamborghini, just not the latest model, but even yesterday's Lamborghini is a force to be reckoned with!!!
Just some random guy, spending $1000, not making great buying choices, ending up with a "3ple screen gaming beast", that is not set up to play games on 3 screens and plays them with mediocre results on 1 screen. Then for some reason brags about it, getting bashed by most people but is appreciated by bored editors of geek/tech sites...
Wow, you have not understood how 3D cinema works at all. You even invent new terms (biplanar vision), when we are simply using Stereoscopy, a technique known since the 19th century. Your eyes see two different images due to parallax in the real world, and that important part of depth perception is what we try to imitate by feeding a slightly different image to each eye, as if there was a camera where each eye is. Well, guess what, that is not all the depth perception information we use in real life - there is also the focusing that we do that depends on the distance of objects, so each person is "tricked" by Stereoscopy in a different way. That's why we say some people don't "get" 3D. As for the technical details, you have mixed things up. RealD does not use alternating frequencies, that is the Dolby 3D method (wavelength multiplexing). RealD is using circular polarization and polarization is not related to the frequency. Then there are the linear polarization methods, like Imax 3D, with the obvious disadvantage that you can't tilt your head sideways or your polarizer glasses won't work. These three systems all "feel" different, for example my wife gets a better 3D effect with Dolby 3D, while I think that it is worse when I move my eyes around and generally prefer Imax 3D but most likely due to the huge screen. Even if each method gives you a bit different effect, if you can't trick your brain into seeing 3D just by using stereopsis, then I guess no system will be useless to you...
You can call them planetary systems or even star/stellar systems if you refer to their stars, but they are definitely not "solar" systems since they are... well... extrasolar!
But Apple did not use the term "Windows" to refer to an entire OS. If Microsoft had trademarked "OS", then it would be similar to the App Store name, but "Windows" is not a generic name to call an Operating System, when "App Store" is indeed a generic way to call an Application Store.
That is the biggest problem. They claim they are not a bank so as not to be regulated as a bank in the US, so they are allowed to screw customers by freezing funds at their discretion, not giving enough fraud protection etc. What is amazing though is this: I was reading an article on consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2010/05/keep-paypal-from-using-the-default-atm-debit-setting-to-save-on-bank-fees.html) and someone from Paypal got offended because they were called an "unregulated bank" by the author. So they posted this little tidbit:
we're not regulated as a bank in the U.S. (we don't hold deposits or issue credit)
Whoa, there, cowboy! First of all, what do you call the funds in the Paypal account? IMHO the only reason they are not called a "deposit" is because Paypal can freeze it at will! Secondly, if they are not issuing credit, WTF is "Bill Me Later"??? Just because they don't CALL it credit, it doesn't mean it is not!
No need to pay for VPS, but he certainly needs to pay for Verizon business class service instead of the residential he obviously has. It is a company after all, they should have a business account - going cheap has its downsides.
- Look at our new DST plan, we will add TWO hours to our clocks during the summer. - Oh, I see. And most countries add just one? - Exactly. - Does that mean you get an extra hour of sunlight? - Well, yeah, you see most countries think that it is not that good when it starts to get dark at say 5pm, so they add one hour and there you are, light until 6pm, but then it still gets dark. Nothing you can do, see, at 6pm it will still get dark. What if you wanted to shoot some more hoops for, say another hour, what do you do then? - I don't know... - Well, what we do is, if you need that extra hour you have it, because we push the clock one extra hour and you've got daylight until 7! - So why don't you just leave the clock as it was and go to work one hour earlier, so that you can finish your work and go for hoops an hour earlier? It will get dark at 6, but you would have had your extra hour by starting your day earlier... - [pause] WE'll add TWO hours for DST!
1) Warming up the car? Really? Was it made in the 60's? 2)
Even the best driver in the world can't instantly stop their car when they get dazzled by the sun.
That is obviously wrong. Your maximum speed is always dictated by how far you can see. If you are "dazzled by the sun", you immediately slow down enough to be able to break in time if something enters your limited range of vision. Otherwise, living in sunny Greece, I would see people running over pedestrians all the time during the summer...
No, I had to repost multiple times and then all posts appeared at once after several hours. They were not even listed in ~/Comments. Also, after pressing submit, the post would appear submitted, but on the top line it would not list my user name or post id... Weird problem...
Canonical had started porting Dalvik to Ubuntu, but it seems they stopped... If Intel ports Dalvik to MeeGo, they would instantly get access to all the Android apps. In fact, a MeeGo device could potentially launch different versions of the Android OS depending on what the user wants to run, making it the most compatible Android device!
PS. I had made a longer (and better) post about the above, previewed it, then saw it submitted and posted correctly on the thread, but now it has just vanished (along with another couple of posts I made earlier today). Is this one of the new layout kinks?
Canonical had started porting Dalvik to Ubuntu, but it seems they stopped... If Intel ports Dalvik to MeeGo, they would instantly get access to all the Android apps. In fact, a MeeGo device could potentially launch different versions of the Android OS depending on what the user wants to run, making it the most compatible Android device!
PS. I had made a longer (and better) post about the above, previewed it, then saw it submitted, but now it has just vanished. Is this one of the new layout kinks?
That is not the whole story, since Intel had a very good ARM based architecture called Xscale, which it sold in 2006 to Marvell. In fact, it was not only good, it was the best at the time and I still have a PDA with a 624MHz PXA270 from back then which is not slow even by modern standards (ok, now with 1+GHz and multicores it will be left behind). So, intel did have a pretty good low power line, they just didn't see much of a future in the mobile space, they did not see smartphones becoming more powerful and more popular. And that is why Intel has not broken into the mobile space successfully, they did not try to until everybody else did.
First of all, as others said, you can already have most linux software. True, the ones working perfectly out of the box are mostly useful to geeks (i.e. everything command line, plus most emulators), for the others some redesign of the UI is required, but that is much simpler than rewriting the entire app, or porting it to an entirely different platform. Secondly, Intel can put some effort into porting Dalvik to MeeGo (since it seems Canonical abandoned the plan to port it to Ubuntu?), then you instantly get the Android apps. And it is possible that Dalvik running as a client on MeeGo could be more compatible than actual Android phones (launch a different Android version for an app that is unsupported, always able to update to the latest OS etc). I mean, really now, you have a full linux distro running on a mobile device, you can't tell me that putting some serious dev effort into that can't give you immense advantages over everyone else.
PS regarding Nokia: I first saw a Nokia 770 (Maemo internet tablet) back in 2005-2006, quite a while before iPhone while my company was mainly doing BREW and Symbian stuff. I remember wondering why the hell do they (Nokia) have us (developers) struggling with one incompatible version of Symbian after the other and they don't put some of their effort into making a phone with such a dev friendly and powerful platform. Well, you know how it went, Nokia could have had a platform to take on the iPhone, perhaps even before the iPhone was out! Yeah, they would not have thought of the capacitive screen and finger UI, but they would have had something pretty close to improve on. Anyway, all I am saying is that it was painfully obvious to the average Symbian developer who came across Maemo 5 years ago, yet it is not obvious to Nokia management even now...
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's Andy Kaufman running clearwire and he sits outside houses, throttles their internet, then gets loads of entertainment by watching people run around the house with their routers!
but which still clearly reflects the will of the people.
It reflects the will of SOME people, who could be FEWER than those who have the opposite opinion. When you can have situations where the FEW can rule the MANY you cannot have a democracy. You can argue all you want that in 2000 Bush winning having "just" half a million votes LESS than Gore is not a big deal, and that Bush was "not the government", but you insult my intelligence when you are trying to claim this fits the definition of "Democracy".
As I understand it, Americans directly elect most of their representatives with a few exceptions such as the president who is now "indirectly" elected by the people, and various positions that the government is empowered to appoint people to.
democracy means government by the people.
Do I really have to explain things here, you don't see the contradiction? We are not talking about a token President like in a parliamentary system, simply put Americans don't elect their government, thus they don't have a "government by the people".
If you haven't done so, it is worth reading how the electoral college works. The "winner takes all" states, the electoral allocations, the cases of "faithless" electors, all make up for a very... hmm... "interesting" system.
I'm confused about the part where we don't elect our representatives. State representatives, senators and mayors generally run on a straight plurality or majority system. Likewise US representatives and senators. The only significant representative we don't elect directly that i can think of is the President, and in that case we (effectively) vote on representatives on a straight plurality system who then vote on the President.
So, the "only" thing you don't elect is the president. Given the fact that it is a presidential system, you are basically "just" not electing the government. Yeah, no biggie (it would be a VERY long discussion about the historical reasons for this and whether it is good or bad), but the simple fact is it does not fit the description "democracy".
Many people think that majority rule is a fundamental part of democracy, but it doesn't _have_ to be.
Again, you are re-defining the word just because you want to include something that does not belong. It is a Greek word, whose meaning for me, Greek being my native tongue, is very clear.
Giving you an analogy, many people think US of A refers to the 50 states that make up a federal republic. But it doesn't HAVE to be those 50 states. I would like to include Mexico in the term.
Why is it so important for you to call it a democracy, going as far as to stretch a 2500 year old term? A lot of people even prefer it over a democracy, they like their electoral college...
On three occasions so far, 1878, 1888, 2000 the party that won the elections was 2nd in total votes. You can't possibly call the US a representative democracy when you don't vote for your representatives, but only some "electors" who are not really obliged to vote the way they had advertised.
I think you are wrong, I don't see the US system covered by the wikipedia definition for democracy, or any other "sane" definition I have heard.
Some people will claim the US is indeed a "representative democracy", however that cannot be correct, since the US citizens do not elect their representatives. Instead, the elect the people who will elect their representatives.
In fact, the very definition of the word democracy, "rule of the people", would imply that a democracy requires the majority vote of the people to govern. Well, this is simply not true in the US system, where on at least three occasions so far (1878, 1888, 2000) the party that one the elections was the party that was 2nd in total votes.
I remember my wife telling me a very amusing story about a lecture on one of her Political Science courses at a NY university, where the professor defined the "Democracy" as a sum of some basic features (5 or 10 I don't remember). Then went on to "rate" each country on a "democratic scale" of 1-10, and ranked the US on top with a score of 10. When the students started asking how could we give it a 10 when half the features you mentioned just 10 minutes ago as part of the definition of democracy are not compatible with the US system, she just answered something along the lines of "the US is the measure for Democracy"...
It was much more amusing when I remembered the details, but the main problems with the definition of democracy were the above two I mentioned (you don't elect your representatives, the plurality vote party can lose) and how lobbying is implemented.
I mean, seriously, who plays the plain rock paper scissors any more? Plus, for the augmented game, a winning strategy for the computer is much easier: if player's http referrer is slashdot, always choose lizard to poison Spock..
My head hurts with your comments, as I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say from the gibberish you write. Phrases like "focused field of depth" have absolutely no meaning, other statements are simply wrong (for the second time, polarized lenses DO NOT filter frequencies) and then there is a number of statements that almost have a meaning, but not much (like the motorized Z-axis thing etc). I completely lost you with the "third angle or field of depth", that made no sense whatsoever.
Things are simple, all the stereoscopic methods (including the old anaglyph method - red blue as you say) try to feed each eye with a different image to emulate the fact that each of your eyes does indeed normally see things from a slightly different angle. That is enough for most (? don't know the statistics on this, judging from people I know) people to make them believe things are leaping out of the screen. For me, the effect is the strongest sitting at the middle of an Imax theater, so that the 3D screen fills completely my field of view.
Then, for other people the fact that their eyes have to maintain focus at a specific distance to see all the supposedly 3D items, is enough to spoil the effect.
The guy bought a COMPAQ! How can you call someone a system builder for upgrading a graphics card and adding 2 monitors to a pre-built low-end Compaq?
Also, how can you post on Slashdot as "news" a forum post that gets so much bashing on that same forum thread? Oh, right, sorry CmdrTaco, didn't notice you there...
Since I had read about it when HardOCP had the also unfortunate idea to post it on their front page, I will give a quick overview of the things that were seriously wrong:
-The title was something about a "gaming beast", when it is a VERY low end PC with a low end graphics card.
-People noted that even when the system was bought, you could do much better than the Compaq machine if you selected the components yourself and should definitely do a little better in the spec department.
-People cited threads from 2007 where people where building triple screen machines for less than $1000.
-The author DOESN'T GAME ON 3 monitors, and hasn't even enabled eyefinity. There goes the "triple screen gaming beast".
-The author makes absurd claims about the fps he gets from games given his setup (even considering the fact he runs them on only 1 monitor).
And there was an amazing comment somewhere in there from the Author, who says something like his machine is a Lamborghini, just not the latest model, but even yesterday's Lamborghini is a force to be reckoned with!!!
Just some random guy, spending $1000, not making great buying choices, ending up with a "3ple screen gaming beast", that is not set up to play games on 3 screens and plays them with mediocre results on 1 screen. Then for some reason brags about it, getting bashed by most people but is appreciated by bored editors of geek/tech sites...
Wow, you have not understood how 3D cinema works at all. You even invent new terms (biplanar vision), when we are simply using Stereoscopy, a technique known since the 19th century. Your eyes see two different images due to parallax in the real world, and that important part of depth perception is what we try to imitate by feeding a slightly different image to each eye, as if there was a camera where each eye is. Well, guess what, that is not all the depth perception information we use in real life - there is also the focusing that we do that depends on the distance of objects, so each person is "tricked" by Stereoscopy in a different way. That's why we say some people don't "get" 3D.
As for the technical details, you have mixed things up. RealD does not use alternating frequencies, that is the Dolby 3D method (wavelength multiplexing). RealD is using circular polarization and polarization is not related to the frequency. Then there are the linear polarization methods, like Imax 3D, with the obvious disadvantage that you can't tilt your head sideways or your polarizer glasses won't work. These three systems all "feel" different, for example my wife gets a better 3D effect with Dolby 3D, while I think that it is worse when I move my eyes around and generally prefer Imax 3D but most likely due to the huge screen. Even if each method gives you a bit different effect, if you can't trick your brain into seeing 3D just by using stereopsis, then I guess no system will be useless to you...
You can call them planetary systems or even star/stellar systems if you refer to their stars, but they are definitely not "solar" systems since they are... well... extrasolar!
But Apple did not use the term "Windows" to refer to an entire OS. If Microsoft had trademarked "OS", then it would be similar to the App Store name, but "Windows" is not a generic name to call an Operating System, when "App Store" is indeed a generic way to call an Application Store.
Hehe, good point! I hadn't noticed that.
That is the biggest problem. They claim they are not a bank so as not to be regulated as a bank in the US, so they are allowed to screw customers by freezing funds at their discretion, not giving enough fraud protection etc.
What is amazing though is this: I was reading an article on consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2010/05/keep-paypal-from-using-the-default-atm-debit-setting-to-save-on-bank-fees.html) and someone from Paypal got offended because they were called an "unregulated bank" by the author. So they posted this little tidbit:
we're not regulated as a bank in the U.S. (we don't hold deposits or issue credit)
Whoa, there, cowboy!
First of all, what do you call the funds in the Paypal account? IMHO the only reason they are not called a "deposit" is because Paypal can freeze it at will!
Secondly, if they are not issuing credit, WTF is "Bill Me Later"??? Just because they don't CALL it credit, it doesn't mean it is not!
No need to pay for VPS, but he certainly needs to pay for Verizon business class service instead of the residential he obviously has. It is a company after all, they should have a business account - going cheap has its downsides.
- Look at our new DST plan, we will add TWO hours to our clocks during the summer.
- Oh, I see. And most countries add just one?
- Exactly.
- Does that mean you get an extra hour of sunlight?
- Well, yeah, you see most countries think that it is not that good when it starts to get dark at say 5pm, so they add one hour and there you are, light until 6pm, but then it still gets dark. Nothing you can do, see, at 6pm it will still get dark. What if you wanted to shoot some more hoops for, say another hour, what do you do then?
- I don't know...
- Well, what we do is, if you need that extra hour you have it, because we push the clock one extra hour and you've got daylight until 7!
- So why don't you just leave the clock as it was and go to work one hour earlier, so that you can finish your work and go for hoops an hour earlier? It will get dark at 6, but you would have had your extra hour by starting your day earlier...
- [pause] WE'll add TWO hours for DST!
Because somehow at idle the interior will warm up faster? The car heater uses the engine heat...
Two points:
1) Warming up the car? Really? Was it made in the 60's?
2)
Even the best driver in the world can't instantly stop their car when they get dazzled by the sun.
That is obviously wrong. Your maximum speed is always dictated by how far you can see. If you are "dazzled by the sun", you immediately slow down enough to be able to break in time if something enters your limited range of vision. Otherwise, living in sunny Greece, I would see people running over pedestrians all the time during the summer...
I know it can be done, the whole point is to have it included when you purchase the device.
As I was saying in another topic earlier today, port Dalvik to MeeGo and you have access to all the Android apps at once!
No, I had to repost multiple times and then all posts appeared at once after several hours. They were not even listed in ~/Comments. Also, after pressing submit, the post would appear submitted, but on the top line it would not list my user name or post id... Weird problem...
Canonical had started porting Dalvik to Ubuntu, but it seems they stopped...
If Intel ports Dalvik to MeeGo, they would instantly get access to all the Android apps. In fact, a MeeGo device could potentially launch different versions of the Android OS depending on what the user wants to run, making it the most compatible Android device!
PS. I had made a longer (and better) post about the above, previewed it, then saw it submitted and posted correctly on the thread, but now it has just vanished (along with another couple of posts I made earlier today). Is this one of the new layout kinks?
Canonical had started porting Dalvik to Ubuntu, but it seems they stopped...
If Intel ports Dalvik to MeeGo, they would instantly get access to all the Android apps. In fact, a MeeGo device could potentially launch different versions of the Android OS depending on what the user wants to run, making it the most compatible Android device!
PS. I had made a longer (and better) post about the above, previewed it, then saw it submitted, but now it has just vanished. Is this one of the new layout kinks?
That is not the whole story, since Intel had a very good ARM based architecture called Xscale, which it sold in 2006 to Marvell. In fact, it was not only good, it was the best at the time and I still have a PDA with a 624MHz PXA270 from back then which is not slow even by modern standards (ok, now with 1+GHz and multicores it will be left behind). So, intel did have a pretty good low power line, they just didn't see much of a future in the mobile space, they did not see smartphones becoming more powerful and more popular.
And that is why Intel has not broken into the mobile space successfully, they did not try to until everybody else did.
First of all, as others said, you can already have most linux software. True, the ones working perfectly out of the box are mostly useful to geeks (i.e. everything command line, plus most emulators), for the others some redesign of the UI is required, but that is much simpler than rewriting the entire app, or porting it to an entirely different platform.
Secondly, Intel can put some effort into porting Dalvik to MeeGo (since it seems Canonical abandoned the plan to port it to Ubuntu?), then you instantly get the Android apps. And it is possible that Dalvik running as a client on MeeGo could be more compatible than actual Android phones (launch a different Android version for an app that is unsupported, always able to update to the latest OS etc).
I mean, really now, you have a full linux distro running on a mobile device, you can't tell me that putting some serious dev effort into that can't give you immense advantages over everyone else.
PS regarding Nokia: I first saw a Nokia 770 (Maemo internet tablet) back in 2005-2006, quite a while before iPhone while my company was mainly doing BREW and Symbian stuff. I remember wondering why the hell do they (Nokia) have us (developers) struggling with one incompatible version of Symbian after the other and they don't put some of their effort into making a phone with such a dev friendly and powerful platform. Well, you know how it went, Nokia could have had a platform to take on the iPhone, perhaps even before the iPhone was out! Yeah, they would not have thought of the capacitive screen and finger UI, but they would have had something pretty close to improve on. Anyway, all I am saying is that it was painfully obvious to the average Symbian developer who came across Maemo 5 years ago, yet it is not obvious to Nokia management even now...