iPhones are overpriced? I paid $300 for an Android phone with only 1 GB built in storage. I could have purchased an iPhone for $200 (my cell phone plan is much cheaper than one with any provider who carries iPhones, which saves me money in the long-run). If you look at just the cost of the phone and not the plan (because you'll have to pay for plans with Android-based phones too), iPhones are very reasonably priced ($0, $99, or $200+).
I also don't like that model. There was an app I installed from the Marketplace (one of the top free apps). It worked well but then I started getting spam to my notification bar every day. I also started receiving a lot of spam phone calls from companies trying to sell me stuff. Apple, for good or bad, would not allow such behavior from a developer.
This is very good practice for applications in the Mac App store. It's a huge security feature. Now, if Apple ever locks down the Mac to allow only applications from the Mac App Store (they won't), I'll give up Mac and go to Linux full-time (I use Macs for neuroimaging research and definitely don't have the applications/tools I use available through the Mac App Store; it would be nice to have a lot of them on a central repository though like Neurodebian {I virtualize that on my Macs}), but in the mean time I'll stick with my Macs. This is a wonderful security feature for applications given stamps of approval from Apple through the Mac App Store. Yes, there might be other security issues introduced through OS X issues but in general this is a positive step forward. Again, I'm not suggesting all applications should be sandboxed, I just think it is good practice for the ones distributed through the Mac App Store.
We buy time on a clinical scanner (we used to use a dedicated research scanner but it went bad and destroyed almost a year's worth of research - image artifact that was not obvious on a standard quality check, it only came out upon close inspection after post-processing). Time is important (we've almost been kicked off by the MRI techs who were impatient) but quality is key so we just scan really early in the morning. We have some minor passive restraints on our subjects - they are wedged in the head coil pretty snugly. We've had only minor issues with movement. There are ways to correct for motion; they aren't perfect but they help.
We'd love to reduce our scan time (I think we could but we stretch out the time of some of our series to try and get as much brain coverage, quality, and resolution as possible) but we are also wary of what artifacts might get introduced by further processing of data (especially on the scanner end). We try to use full Fourier sampling as well, in order to reduce the running of algorithms that might reduce data quality. It increases scan length but we are really concerned about quality; even slight reductions in quality can result in significant changes in our results.
"If you want a better image then they take longer."
That's very true with MRI (my research is with MRI). We have our research participants spend 70 minutes in the MRI scanner. This is to capture 6 (7 with a localizer - a quick scan to set up the scanning area) different types of brain images. Our longest individual scan is just over 19 minutes. However, I have a project in the planning stages that will allow me to increase the resolution dramatically (from 1 mm^3 or 2 mm^3 to.25 mm^3 or.5 mm^3 {or, hopefully even higher resolution}); however, this will require scans of many hours (not with live humans), even more than 24 hours in some cases.
This new algorithm seems like it could really help clinicians and some researchers. My type of scanning won't be helped by it for a long time though because I cannot sacrifice quality for speed. I need the sharpest, least distorted images possible. Clinically, that doesn't matter as much because radiologists are not quantifying parts of the brain in the same way that I do.
It's a fascinating technology though. Anything we can do to speed up scan acquisition and post-processing is very welcome.
"What would it take to prove that climate change is caused by man?"
Are we saying that humans cause all climate change, or just contribute significantly to it. This is the problem with how climate change research is used. Many people (politicians, concerned citizens, some scientists) act as if climate change is occurring only because of the actions of people. This ignores all of the other factors and potential factors. I'm not saying that all the climate change scientists ignore other factors but some of their models are simplistic enough to hold other factors constant to see what incremental changes humans are responsible for. This is perfectly fine for science but with science that has huge political, environmental, and economic consequences, we need our climate change scientists to be particularly skeptical of their hypotheses about human effects on climate change.
The real question is what do we do about climate change? Do we try to stop warming, or do we encourage it? Would it really be bad to have the earth warmer? Is it good for us to negate the effects of humans? Should we go beyond this and try to control the earth's environment, or do we let it take a more natural course (whatever that is - natural courses lead to mass extinctions every once in a while)? Are we sure that by trying to reduce the effects of humans on global climate we are not causing unintended negative consequences?
These are the kinds of questions people should ask. We need more thinking and studying before acting. I think governments, individuals, companies, and other entities should be environmentally conscious and try to reduce our effects on the earth. That being said, I am a skeptic - a true scientific skeptic. I accept what has been demonstrated through science, I just think we need to not jump to political conclusions based on misrepresentations of political activists. I also think the scientists should keep out of the politics of the matter; when politics drives science, we end up with poor science more often than not.
My Motorola phone, purchased in July 2011, came with Android 2.2. As of now there are no plans to update it to 2.3 so I went with a custom ROM. Before Gingerbread, the phone was usable. It was OK. Now with a custom ROM it's a much better phone. By comparison to how it functions with 2.3, my phone running 2.2 was terrible. It's battery doesn't die on me by early evening like it used to. I still charge it every night but if needed, I could wait until morning, something I never could do before. Manufacturers are doing no favor to Android by not upgrading every capable phone to the newest OS as quickly as possible. I have a lot of friends with Android phones who are planning on switching to iPhones for precisely this reason. They get Android-based phones initially because of cheaper upfront costs (which is less of an issue now with the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S hitting different price points) but then they quickly get fed up with Android and/or the manufacturer and turn to Apple. I do not personally know anyone who has gone from an iPhone to an Android device.
I know some people (many here on/.) see being able to load custom ROMs as a plus for Android-based phones (it is in some cases) but we should not have to resort to that to get a really functional and more secure phone. Security is the big issue with manufacturers not updating the OS. It's nice to tinker with the phone, it's like building your own computer and installing Linux, but at some point I also want a phone that just works. There is also no way that most people getting smart phones will ever load a custom ROM. As easy as it is, it is beyond the capabilities or interest of most people.
I like Android and I don't mind dealing with ROMs and mods and rooting and all that, but manufacturers should be supporting their own products (some do, most don't very well) or else they will lose out to Apple. There's a reason consumers are more satisfied with iPhones and Apple than any other phone or phone-producing company.
The parent poster said "an administration" not "this administration". Besides, Pres. Obama campaigned on the promise to remove troops from Iraq starting the day he got in office and that they'd be out of Iraq that year (2009). Now it turns out that Pres. Obama simply followed the plan Pres. Bush's administration put in place for withdrawal.
And all of those phones looked and worked very similarly to the iPhone./sarcasm
I don't care if Android is borrowing things from iOS - that's competition but we shouldn't ignore the huge influence Apple has had in the smartphone market. Smartphones were very different before the iPhone came out; RIM was king. Now, almost all smartphones look and work more or less like the iPhone.
Android phones are quite easy to use. However, compared to iOS they are more difficult to use. I've find iOS to be very logical and intuitive but I struggle more with my Android phone (I'm not saying I struggle, it's just less intuitive than iOS).
Except that iPhones are not that expensive (you can get iPhones for free with new plans, just like Android-based phones) and they do more than Android-based phones do (if you count apps in functions).
I would but there are no "Google" phones on my carrier and the cost of switching carriers would be prohibitively expensive for me (on the order of >$700 a year). I'm not complaining; I like my phone and my carrier is just fine but having to rely on "the community" for OS updates is telling of a manufacturer's attitude towards its customers.
"You didn't buy an Android phone. You bought an Android *COMPATIBLE* phone."
True. But Google's problem was that they initially allowed any manufacturer and/or carrier to modify Android as needed. In theory this is a great idea but what's happened is manufacturers will often release a phone and then stop caring about it (anecdotally, this is the norm across all carriers in the U.S. and most phone brands based on my talking with people I know with Android "compatible" phones). That attitude works just fine with traditional cell phones but is poor customer service with smart phones.
I just hope that my phone gets updated to this. I'm still stuck with Froyo and my phone just came out in July. That's one of the most frustrating aspects of Android phones - the manufacturers do not upgrade the phones. With the quick turnover in phone OSes, it's inexcusable for manufacturers to stick with old OSes. I can understand if the phone hardware cannot handle the upgrade but I know that many phone manufacturers simply do not want to support their devices. Instead, to get updates we have to turn to CyanogenMod. This is one reason iPhones are so popular (yes, I know Android is overtaking iOS but the iPhone is the most popular smartphone model), at least Apple does a good job of updating iOS and getting it to as many iPhones as possible.
"I don't know about the icons, but most laptops these days are glossy because that's what people tend to buy. This isn't something that started with tablets."
The parent poster's point was only about the glossiness of the icons, not the LCD screen. There's no issue with that.
Thank you. Someone who actually understands what's going on between the companies. This is less about the specific patents (on Apple's part) than about a business partner (Samsung) taking what Apple did and blatantly copying it. Yes, all the companies copy each other but in this case Samsung is part of Apple's supply line and they happen to come out with devices that are suspiciously similar to iPads and iPhones.
My limited experience with Google's voice recognition on my Android phone is that it is okay but nothing special. Actually, it's far more annoying than just typing what I want. I'll be saying something and it will think I'm done talking and stop listening to me. That's mainly why I haven't used it more - it's so buggy that it's not worth the effort. Maybe it's just my phone or my version of Android (2.2) or my technical ineptitude but voice recognition in Android needs a lot of work to get to where Siri is now.
That's what I see in neuroscience (neuroimaging specifically). Mostly Apple laptops and a mixture of OS X and Linux on desktops. It's a lot easier to use Macs when most of the tools of Linux (plus those of OS X and Windows) are available on one machine.
Samsung is also a major part of Apple's supply line. Other companies just copied (which is fine to do) but Samsung does it with insider information (not fine), or at least it looks that way.
I have a new Android phone and I concur. I can usually last all day if I don't use the phone much. This is with battery and power management apps running. If I tried to watch a movie on my phone, I'd be lucky to finish it from a full charge. Not all Android phones are that bad - the LG Optimus is quite good on power - but many Android phones have terrible battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of like charging people who make more money higher taxes. What kind of craziness is that?!
iPhones are overpriced? I paid $300 for an Android phone with only 1 GB built in storage. I could have purchased an iPhone for $200 (my cell phone plan is much cheaper than one with any provider who carries iPhones, which saves me money in the long-run). If you look at just the cost of the phone and not the plan (because you'll have to pay for plans with Android-based phones too), iPhones are very reasonably priced ($0, $99, or $200+).
I also don't like that model. There was an app I installed from the Marketplace (one of the top free apps). It worked well but then I started getting spam to my notification bar every day. I also started receiving a lot of spam phone calls from companies trying to sell me stuff. Apple, for good or bad, would not allow such behavior from a developer.
This is very good practice for applications in the Mac App store. It's a huge security feature. Now, if Apple ever locks down the Mac to allow only applications from the Mac App Store (they won't), I'll give up Mac and go to Linux full-time (I use Macs for neuroimaging research and definitely don't have the applications/tools I use available through the Mac App Store; it would be nice to have a lot of them on a central repository though like Neurodebian {I virtualize that on my Macs}), but in the mean time I'll stick with my Macs. This is a wonderful security feature for applications given stamps of approval from Apple through the Mac App Store. Yes, there might be other security issues introduced through OS X issues but in general this is a positive step forward. Again, I'm not suggesting all applications should be sandboxed, I just think it is good practice for the ones distributed through the Mac App Store.
We buy time on a clinical scanner (we used to use a dedicated research scanner but it went bad and destroyed almost a year's worth of research - image artifact that was not obvious on a standard quality check, it only came out upon close inspection after post-processing). Time is important (we've almost been kicked off by the MRI techs who were impatient) but quality is key so we just scan really early in the morning. We have some minor passive restraints on our subjects - they are wedged in the head coil pretty snugly. We've had only minor issues with movement. There are ways to correct for motion; they aren't perfect but they help.
We'd love to reduce our scan time (I think we could but we stretch out the time of some of our series to try and get as much brain coverage, quality, and resolution as possible) but we are also wary of what artifacts might get introduced by further processing of data (especially on the scanner end). We try to use full Fourier sampling as well, in order to reduce the running of algorithms that might reduce data quality. It increases scan length but we are really concerned about quality; even slight reductions in quality can result in significant changes in our results.
"If you want a better image then they take longer."
.25 mm^3 or .5 mm^3 {or, hopefully even higher resolution}); however, this will require scans of many hours (not with live humans), even more than 24 hours in some cases.
That's very true with MRI (my research is with MRI). We have our research participants spend 70 minutes in the MRI scanner. This is to capture 6 (7 with a localizer - a quick scan to set up the scanning area) different types of brain images. Our longest individual scan is just over 19 minutes. However, I have a project in the planning stages that will allow me to increase the resolution dramatically (from 1 mm^3 or 2 mm^3 to
This new algorithm seems like it could really help clinicians and some researchers. My type of scanning won't be helped by it for a long time though because I cannot sacrifice quality for speed. I need the sharpest, least distorted images possible. Clinically, that doesn't matter as much because radiologists are not quantifying parts of the brain in the same way that I do.
It's a fascinating technology though. Anything we can do to speed up scan acquisition and post-processing is very welcome.
"What would it take to prove that climate change is caused by man?"
Are we saying that humans cause all climate change, or just contribute significantly to it. This is the problem with how climate change research is used. Many people (politicians, concerned citizens, some scientists) act as if climate change is occurring only because of the actions of people. This ignores all of the other factors and potential factors. I'm not saying that all the climate change scientists ignore other factors but some of their models are simplistic enough to hold other factors constant to see what incremental changes humans are responsible for. This is perfectly fine for science but with science that has huge political, environmental, and economic consequences, we need our climate change scientists to be particularly skeptical of their hypotheses about human effects on climate change.
The real question is what do we do about climate change? Do we try to stop warming, or do we encourage it? Would it really be bad to have the earth warmer? Is it good for us to negate the effects of humans? Should we go beyond this and try to control the earth's environment, or do we let it take a more natural course (whatever that is - natural courses lead to mass extinctions every once in a while)? Are we sure that by trying to reduce the effects of humans on global climate we are not causing unintended negative consequences?
These are the kinds of questions people should ask. We need more thinking and studying before acting. I think governments, individuals, companies, and other entities should be environmentally conscious and try to reduce our effects on the earth. That being said, I am a skeptic - a true scientific skeptic. I accept what has been demonstrated through science, I just think we need to not jump to political conclusions based on misrepresentations of political activists. I also think the scientists should keep out of the politics of the matter; when politics drives science, we end up with poor science more often than not.
My Motorola phone, purchased in July 2011, came with Android 2.2. As of now there are no plans to update it to 2.3 so I went with a custom ROM. Before Gingerbread, the phone was usable. It was OK. Now with a custom ROM it's a much better phone. By comparison to how it functions with 2.3, my phone running 2.2 was terrible. It's battery doesn't die on me by early evening like it used to. I still charge it every night but if needed, I could wait until morning, something I never could do before. Manufacturers are doing no favor to Android by not upgrading every capable phone to the newest OS as quickly as possible. I have a lot of friends with Android phones who are planning on switching to iPhones for precisely this reason. They get Android-based phones initially because of cheaper upfront costs (which is less of an issue now with the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S hitting different price points) but then they quickly get fed up with Android and/or the manufacturer and turn to Apple. I do not personally know anyone who has gone from an iPhone to an Android device.
/.) see being able to load custom ROMs as a plus for Android-based phones (it is in some cases) but we should not have to resort to that to get a really functional and more secure phone. Security is the big issue with manufacturers not updating the OS. It's nice to tinker with the phone, it's like building your own computer and installing Linux, but at some point I also want a phone that just works. There is also no way that most people getting smart phones will ever load a custom ROM. As easy as it is, it is beyond the capabilities or interest of most people.
I know some people (many here on
I like Android and I don't mind dealing with ROMs and mods and rooting and all that, but manufacturers should be supporting their own products (some do, most don't very well) or else they will lose out to Apple. There's a reason consumers are more satisfied with iPhones and Apple than any other phone or phone-producing company.
The parent poster said "an administration" not "this administration". Besides, Pres. Obama campaigned on the promise to remove troops from Iraq starting the day he got in office and that they'd be out of Iraq that year (2009). Now it turns out that Pres. Obama simply followed the plan Pres. Bush's administration put in place for withdrawal.
And all of those phones looked and worked very similarly to the iPhone./sarcasm
I don't care if Android is borrowing things from iOS - that's competition but we shouldn't ignore the huge influence Apple has had in the smartphone market. Smartphones were very different before the iPhone came out; RIM was king. Now, almost all smartphones look and work more or less like the iPhone.
Stop repeating this myth. Apple paid Xerox (in stocks) for the GUI and the mouse. Apple did not steal them - Xerox gave (sold) them away willingly.
Android phones are quite easy to use. However, compared to iOS they are more difficult to use. I've find iOS to be very logical and intuitive but I struggle more with my Android phone (I'm not saying I struggle, it's just less intuitive than iOS).
Except that iPhones are not that expensive (you can get iPhones for free with new plans, just like Android-based phones) and they do more than Android-based phones do (if you count apps in functions).
I would but there are no "Google" phones on my carrier and the cost of switching carriers would be prohibitively expensive for me (on the order of >$700 a year). I'm not complaining; I like my phone and my carrier is just fine but having to rely on "the community" for OS updates is telling of a manufacturer's attitude towards its customers.
"You didn't buy an Android phone. You bought an Android *COMPATIBLE* phone."
True. But Google's problem was that they initially allowed any manufacturer and/or carrier to modify Android as needed. In theory this is a great idea but what's happened is manufacturers will often release a phone and then stop caring about it (anecdotally, this is the norm across all carriers in the U.S. and most phone brands based on my talking with people I know with Android "compatible" phones). That attitude works just fine with traditional cell phones but is poor customer service with smart phones.
Ok, the manufacturer is Motorola (actually Huawei made the phone for Motorola but it is Motorola branded and they claim it for support).
I just hope that my phone gets updated to this. I'm still stuck with Froyo and my phone just came out in July. That's one of the most frustrating aspects of Android phones - the manufacturers do not upgrade the phones. With the quick turnover in phone OSes, it's inexcusable for manufacturers to stick with old OSes. I can understand if the phone hardware cannot handle the upgrade but I know that many phone manufacturers simply do not want to support their devices. Instead, to get updates we have to turn to CyanogenMod. This is one reason iPhones are so popular (yes, I know Android is overtaking iOS but the iPhone is the most popular smartphone model), at least Apple does a good job of updating iOS and getting it to as many iPhones as possible.
All this being said, Android 4.0 looks great.
"I don't know about the icons, but most laptops these days are glossy because that's what people tend to buy. This isn't something that started with tablets."
The parent poster's point was only about the glossiness of the icons, not the LCD screen. There's no issue with that.
Thank you. Someone who actually understands what's going on between the companies. This is less about the specific patents (on Apple's part) than about a business partner (Samsung) taking what Apple did and blatantly copying it. Yes, all the companies copy each other but in this case Samsung is part of Apple's supply line and they happen to come out with devices that are suspiciously similar to iPads and iPhones.
My limited experience with Google's voice recognition on my Android phone is that it is okay but nothing special. Actually, it's far more annoying than just typing what I want. I'll be saying something and it will think I'm done talking and stop listening to me. That's mainly why I haven't used it more - it's so buggy that it's not worth the effort. Maybe it's just my phone or my version of Android (2.2) or my technical ineptitude but voice recognition in Android needs a lot of work to get to where Siri is now.
That's what I see in neuroscience (neuroimaging specifically). Mostly Apple laptops and a mixture of OS X and Linux on desktops. It's a lot easier to use Macs when most of the tools of Linux (plus those of OS X and Windows) are available on one machine.
Backwards compatibility has been added back in to FCPX. They should have included it in the first place but at least Apple responded to complaints.
Samsung is also a major part of Apple's supply line. Other companies just copied (which is fine to do) but Samsung does it with insider information (not fine), or at least it looks that way.
I have a new Android phone and I concur. I can usually last all day if I don't use the phone much. This is with battery and power management apps running. If I tried to watch a movie on my phone, I'd be lucky to finish it from a full charge. Not all Android phones are that bad - the LG Optimus is quite good on power - but many Android phones have terrible battery life.
Hypertension will destroy your memory if it doesn't kill you so salt certainly won't help. :)