>> if you can't perform live or sing without autotune, you are not a musician. Simple as that.
What about Kraftwerk? Surely they are musicians, and I much prefer they use their Vocoder and Robovox rather than having to listening to Ralf Hütter's singing in real voice (ugh! I still writhe in aural pain whenever I hear the opening bars to "Sex Object"!).
On the plus side, they did perform live (and still do).
No, there's a perception that Symbian is used only in smartphones that do not do any of the latest smartphone-ish stuff. That is, Symbian smartphones are for those who really do not want a smartphone.
Actually, as some have pointed above, it's quite more mundane than that. If the Declaration Of Independence used the word "subjects," it would be an admission that they were only grievances against a legitimate monarchy, and as such the document would have far less impact than it currently has.
By changing the term to "citizens," Jefferson elevated the text from a mere "bitch list" against an unpopular King, into a cry for dissolution from an unjust tyrant.
It fits within the contention that the Declaration Of Independence, more than a statement of principle, was a tool of political eloquence; employed to justify to the rest of the world why the colonies should be free to do as they please, and in doing so gain legitimacy as a True Nation in the world stage at large.
It is such nuanced use of language such as changing the word "subjects" into "citizens," that shows the brilliant rhetorical talents of Mr. Jefferson, and the success of the document is a testament to this.
That's now. Do you recall how it all started? It was a beastly large and ugly machine, with huge controllers, seemingly designed for proto-hominid hands.
Oh, and it had skin covers, like racing stripes and fire flames, in an attempt to lure the "kool l33t kidz" in.
Sure, give the Kin a few more years and perhaps it would have started to look decent.
Did you even check the AnandTech article? The antenna still works with the user holding the device. Like many other devices, attenuation occurs when the antenna is covered, especially when in contact with the human body. This attenuation is mitigated by the fact that signal quality is improved even at the lowest signal strengths. However, it is significant enough to cause disruption if the user is in an area with a weak signal already.
As the AnandTech tests show, part of the problem is in the way that the signal strength is reported by the "bars" meter, a weak signal around 40% of the maximum supported still shows up as "5 bars". When attenuated by touching the antenna in the right place this gives the illusion of a drop from full strength (5 bars) to none, which seems more dramatic than it really is.
The attenuation is marked, there is no argument about that. However, even AnandTech suggests that coating the antenna with an insulative should help mitigate it even more. In other words, it seems to be a sound design, based on solid engineering, with perhaps some implementation flaws due to the rush to market.
Now, based on the conclusions of overall improved reception and signal quality, in spite of the flaws, can you seriously say that "at no time was an actual engineer in this area consulted"? You really believe that the marketing department designed an RF antenna that worked well and improved signal quality under most circumstances without any consultation with actual engineers?
More likely, like any other engineering endeavor designed for used in the real world, trade-offs had to be considered. And like many other first-generation designs, flaws related to these trade-offs surfaced after implementation.
I would say that hte most likely scenario was that after the Gawker incident, Apple's preferred time-line for release was compromised, and they were forced to release earlier than intended; possibly limiting their real-world testing capabilities.
Correct. And the conclusion from the AnandTech article seems to be that the antenna design is an improvement, and that its first-generation flaws can be mitigated by an insulative coating or a rubber case.
I'll going out on a limb here and guess that this issue is akin to the "exploding iPhone" problem that was all over the news a couple of years ago. It's perhaps a manufacturing defect or even a design flaw that requires very specific and non-typical circumstances, which is affecting a very small number of people.
And just like that previous issue, that very small group of affected people happen to blog all over the Internet, which then echos their complaints and amplifies them very efficiently, giving the illusion of a massively reported problem--at least to those who read that sort of stuff (which apparently is every other person in the Internet)--and re-enforcing their own biases that Apple is evil. There will be claims of deceit, and threats of legal action, and the echo chamber will cry that Apple has "lost their cool" (again) and have "made a mockery of themselves and everyone" (again), and of course, that this will probably--and most likely--be their downfall (again).
Then, as with the "exploding iPhone" hoopla, those really affected by this problem will get rectification or compensation from Apple, while the rest will get told off and ignored for being alarmist and reactionary bloggers; and it'll all die down eventually, quietly, and nobody else will care.
The sun will rise in the east, then set in the west, and consumers will continue purchasing the thing because it works for the vast majority of them. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
So, let me get this straight: In your conspiracy theory, Apple has built an ad-blocker on the newer version of their browser for their desktop operating system so that they can sell more advertisements that display on their mobile operating system?
Of course, all those will innovate by following Apple and adding the feature to their browsers, but Apple will be regarded as evil because they did it first. And of course, they didn't innovate because it already existed. Even though not natively in browsers. And without multi-paging.
Most consumers just do not see the value of most web sites they frequently visit--at least not enough to pay real money for them. However, these are the same consumers that pay for cellular phone "data" service, CableTV, and maybe even Netflix; so obviously they are not averse to paying for stuff.
If end-users find the "Reader" feature appealing when used on a particular site, then it means that the site itself does not offer the content in a way that the user would prefer. Keep in mind that nobody forced him to enable the feature, they voluntarily chose to use it, most likely because they disliked the original presentation.
If the site depends on pissing off their readers by forcing them to read the articles in a way that they dislike in order to survive, perhaps their survival is not necessarily warranted.
Are you really defending the advertisers' right to force a crappy layout and typography on users?
Slashdot Mirror
So Google puts up a contest offering $10M USD and didn't think they'll get everyone and their dog submitting entries? C'mon!
dZ.
>> if you can't perform live or sing without autotune, you are not a musician. Simple as that.
What about Kraftwerk? Surely they are musicians, and I much prefer they use their Vocoder and Robovox rather than having to listening to Ralf Hütter's singing in real voice (ugh! I still writhe in aural pain whenever I hear the opening bars to "Sex Object"!).
On the plus side, they did perform live (and still do).
-dZ.
No, there's a perception that Symbian is used only in smartphones that do not do any of the latest smartphone-ish stuff. That is, Symbian smartphones are for those who really do not want a smartphone.
-dZ.
Actually, as some have pointed above, it's quite more mundane than that. If the Declaration Of Independence used the word "subjects," it would be an admission that they were only grievances against a legitimate monarchy, and as such the document would have far less impact than it currently has.
By changing the term to "citizens," Jefferson elevated the text from a mere "bitch list" against an unpopular King, into a cry for dissolution from an unjust tyrant.
It fits within the contention that the Declaration Of Independence, more than a statement of principle, was a tool of political eloquence; employed to justify to the rest of the world why the colonies should be free to do as they please, and in doing so gain legitimacy as a True Nation in the world stage at large.
It is such nuanced use of language such as changing the word "subjects" into "citizens," that shows the brilliant rhetorical talents of Mr. Jefferson, and the success of the document is a testament to this.
-dZ.
Intelligent design? This is Monsanto we're talking about!
-dZ.
To get "blackberried" is when they kick you in the 'nads.
Seems rather apt.
-dZ.
If only Stallman was alive to enjoy this.
Oh wait!
-dZ.
That's now. Do you recall how it all started? It was a beastly large and ugly machine, with huge controllers, seemingly designed for proto-hominid hands.
Oh, and it had skin covers, like racing stripes and fire flames, in an attempt to lure the "kool l33t kidz" in.
Sure, give the Kin a few more years and perhaps it would have started to look decent.
-dZ.
Did you even check the AnandTech article? The antenna still works with the user holding the device. Like many other devices, attenuation occurs when the antenna is covered, especially when in contact with the human body. This attenuation is mitigated by the fact that signal quality is improved even at the lowest signal strengths. However, it is significant enough to cause disruption if the user is in an area with a weak signal already.
As the AnandTech tests show, part of the problem is in the way that the signal strength is reported by the "bars" meter, a weak signal around 40% of the maximum supported still shows up as "5 bars". When attenuated by touching the antenna in the right place this gives the illusion of a drop from full strength (5 bars) to none, which seems more dramatic than it really is.
The attenuation is marked, there is no argument about that. However, even AnandTech suggests that coating the antenna with an insulative should help mitigate it even more. In other words, it seems to be a sound design, based on solid engineering, with perhaps some implementation flaws due to the rush to market.
-dZ.
Oh, and by the way, can someone mod the parent +1 Informative?
-dZ.
+5 Interesting, really?
Here, read this actually interesting article on the subject:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2
Now, based on the conclusions of overall improved reception and signal quality, in spite of the flaws, can you seriously say that "at no time was an actual engineer in this area consulted"? You really believe that the marketing department designed an RF antenna that worked well and improved signal quality under most circumstances without any consultation with actual engineers?
More likely, like any other engineering endeavor designed for used in the real world, trade-offs had to be considered. And like many other first-generation designs, flaws related to these trade-offs surfaced after implementation.
I would say that hte most likely scenario was that after the Gawker incident, Apple's preferred time-line for release was compromised, and they were forced to release earlier than intended; possibly limiting their real-world testing capabilities.
-dZ.
Correct. And the conclusion from the AnandTech article seems to be that the antenna design is an improvement, and that its first-generation flaws can be mitigated by an insulative coating or a rubber case.
dZ.
>> ...Putting the horse behind the cart?
Just don't put the horse that way. It's not a big deal.
-Steve
--
Sent from my iPhone
Australia or Canada?
-dZ.
>> Well coded applications can add features and not slow down -- it is possible!
Take a look at Opera for an example of this. People may disagree with interface and philosophy of Opera, but it is blazingly fast in Windows.
-dZ.
Right, because you read it on the Internet, it must be true. Also, since it is on the Internet, it affects 100% of the users, 100% of the time.
-dZ.
I have a Sony Trinitron 32" Television and those things are heavy! How the hell do they stay suspended with those thin wires, I'll never know.
-dZ.
I'll going out on a limb here and guess that this issue is akin to the "exploding iPhone" problem that was all over the news a couple of years ago. It's perhaps a manufacturing defect or even a design flaw that requires very specific and non-typical circumstances, which is affecting a very small number of people.
And just like that previous issue, that very small group of affected people happen to blog all over the Internet, which then echos their complaints and amplifies them very efficiently, giving the illusion of a massively reported problem--at least to those who read that sort of stuff (which apparently is every other person in the Internet)--and re-enforcing their own biases that Apple is evil. There will be claims of deceit, and threats of legal action, and the echo chamber will cry that Apple has "lost their cool" (again) and have "made a mockery of themselves and everyone" (again), and of course, that this will probably--and most likely--be their downfall (again).
Then, as with the "exploding iPhone" hoopla, those really affected by this problem will get rectification or compensation from Apple, while the rest will get told off and ignored for being alarmist and reactionary bloggers; and it'll all die down eventually, quietly, and nobody else will care.
The sun will rise in the east, then set in the west, and consumers will continue purchasing the thing because it works for the vast majority of them. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
-dZ.
>> who would rather be part of a group then have a properly working device.
Some may like having a properly working device in order to then be part of a group.
-dZ.
Because every single other phone has an internal antenna that sucks and loses reception for different reasons.
-dZ.
So, let me get this straight: In your conspiracy theory, Apple has built an ad-blocker on the newer version of their browser for their desktop operating system so that they can sell more advertisements that display on their mobile operating system?
Is that right?
-dZ.
Of course, all those will innovate by following Apple and adding the feature to their browsers, but Apple will be regarded as evil because they did it first. And of course, they didn't innovate because it already existed. Even though not natively in browsers. And without multi-paging.
-dZ.
>> but most consumers seem to prefer ads.
Most consumers just do not see the value of most web sites they frequently visit--at least not enough to pay real money for them. However, these are the same consumers that pay for cellular phone "data" service, CableTV, and maybe even Netflix; so obviously they are not averse to paying for stuff.
-dZ.
If end-users find the "Reader" feature appealing when used on a particular site, then it means that the site itself does not offer the content in a way that the user would prefer. Keep in mind that nobody forced him to enable the feature, they voluntarily chose to use it, most likely because they disliked the original presentation.
If the site depends on pissing off their readers by forcing them to read the articles in a way that they dislike in order to survive, perhaps their survival is not necessarily warranted.
Are you really defending the advertisers' right to force a crappy layout and typography on users?
-dZ.
Not only that, but the description of Apps do not typically mention the collection of location or other identifying information.
-dZ.