Been using touchscreen BB since the storm. Truly a horrible machine, hardware-wise, and the storm 2 wasn't much better. But, and I suspect I may be in a minority, I still prefer my storm 2 touchscreen to my SGS2 for one simple reason - the hardware "click". I've lost count of the number of times I've cursed at Android for following a link (i.e. picking up a 'click') when I'm actually just trying to scroll. Never happened on the BB, not even once.
As for bb and "keyboard-centeredness" I came from a Bold 9700 to the Storm, and if I had a time machine and could go back, I'd give up the keyboard in exchange for display real-estate again in a heartbeat, despite the shortcomings of the storm. I did curse, throw fits and desperately miss the physical keyboard for a couple of weeks but after that, I became accustomed to the touch keyboard and now don't miss the physical keyboard at all...
I'm not convinced the keyboard alone accounted for "80% of the popularity". For me I could care less - it's BBM and Push/Notifications that make it my choice of 'business' phone.
"We are so far above the law and so deep in government's pockets, that we can even have a sentence imposed that's double the legal maximum"
Message received, loud and clear.
I'm 52 now. I've lived from the "home taping is killing music" era of my first portable cassette player, until today - and yet I don't see any compelling evidence whatsoever of anything being killed.
I do hope I live long enough to see the ultimate demise of these "new, legal" organised crime bosses, when their business model finally implodes.
Actually, Apple is consistently one of the highest rated companies (very often the highest) in terms of customer satisfaction.
Apple's following seems to have a disproportionate number of irrational, fanatical disciples who truly "believe". I hold them in the same regard as scientologists or indeed, members of any cult. That they're "satisfied" is no big surprise.
I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.
What kind of twisted reasoning could possibly lead you to that conclusion?
I disagree wholeheartedly but I'm open minded enough to argue WHY you think anyone should be responsible for someone else's comments.
By your logic, Slashdot is (partly?) responsible for THIS comment? And yours? Where do you draw the line? Why should the fact that Slashdot (presumably) makes one off running the site make a difference, why the distinction whether it's for-profit or non-profit?
Of course! We've written an "interesting things" filter just for you. You'll never need to see anybody's post blaspheming against Apple again. But we were stopped from releasing it because Apple already had the patent "method of displaying only nice things that make me happy" so we can't let you use it.
For a start, it shows how Samsung's design radically changed from F700 to Galaxy S (I mean, check it, icons are now in color AND there's color silver appearing on the border now). Also, their marking is incosistent, half of things they crossed out on F700 seems like were crossed just because nobody would bother to check what's written there (really, "The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device." doesn't apply to F700?)
Now there's how specific are tablet related claims:
One question. Why did Apple themselves REMOVE the F700 from their filings?
Here's why:
Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to draw your attention to the F700 which is clearly a copy of the iPhone Apple lawyer #2: Errr... A moment your honour... [nudges lawyer 1] "(actually the F700 was before the iPhone 1)" Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to have the F700 excluded from these proceedings as it is not relevant
But anyway you're absolutely right. All he did was lie about it bursting into flames while he drove - he didn't admit he microwaved it.
He did admit that another mouth-breather attempted to recover the phone from water and applied a "large amount of external energy" to it.
I suspect there is a 'd' missing from his online handle.
"Dilo2k10" Quote: "The damage to the phone was caused by another person, although they were attempting to recover the phone from water this later caused the damage shown on the phone. It occurred due to a large amount of external energy and there was no fault with the phone. This was not a deliberate act but a stupid mistake."
Slashdot Mirror
Let me know when your USB port has serial, audio, and video connectors.
Hello. My 2011 Samsung Galaxy S2 (which is currently connected to my TV and Surround amp) called you and would like a word...
Been using touchscreen BB since the storm. Truly a horrible machine, hardware-wise, and the storm 2 wasn't much better. But, and I suspect I may be in a minority, I still prefer my storm 2 touchscreen to my SGS2 for one simple reason - the hardware "click". I've lost count of the number of times I've cursed at Android for following a link (i.e. picking up a 'click') when I'm actually just trying to scroll. Never happened on the BB, not even once.
As for bb and "keyboard-centeredness" I came from a Bold 9700 to the Storm, and if I had a time machine and could go back, I'd give up the keyboard in exchange for display real-estate again in a heartbeat, despite the shortcomings of the storm. I did curse, throw fits and desperately miss the physical keyboard for a couple of weeks but after that, I became accustomed to the touch keyboard and now don't miss the physical keyboard at all...
I'm not convinced the keyboard alone accounted for "80% of the popularity". For me I could care less - it's BBM and Push/Notifications that make it my choice of 'business' phone.
Are you perhaps referring to the Apple PDA (August '93) that they shamelessly copied from the Casio/Tandy Zoomer (June '92)
"We are so far above the law and so deep in government's pockets, that we can even have a sentence imposed that's double the legal maximum"
Message received, loud and clear.
I'm 52 now. I've lived from the "home taping is killing music" era of my first portable cassette player, until today - and yet I don't see any compelling evidence whatsoever of anything being killed.
I do hope I live long enough to see the ultimate demise of these "new, legal" organised crime bosses, when their business model finally implodes.
See the latest Apple patent, the nanosim. Look familiar?
See the latest Apple patent application, "autosave". Look familiar?
(I wonder if they also patented their new "save as" innovation, which not only "saves as" but overwrites the original.)
See the latest Apple patent application, "flexible flap add-on incorporating a flexible display". Look familiar?
It's a copy of the SGS2. They started the "na na nana na copycat copycat" war as a diversion.
Actually, Apple is consistently one of the highest rated companies (very often the highest) in terms of customer satisfaction.
Apple's following seems to have a disproportionate number of irrational, fanatical disciples who truly "believe". I hold them in the same regard as scientologists or indeed, members of any cult. That they're "satisfied" is no big surprise.
I know you're joking but if I think about it, I'm forced to admit I would buy that game.
1. Buy Facebook stock
2.
No, wait...
It's also illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater
It is? Next time I'm in a crowded theater that's on fire I must remember not to shout "fire"
"makes MONEY" I don't know what happened to the m and the y, keyboard fart.
I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.
What kind of twisted reasoning could possibly lead you to that conclusion?
I disagree wholeheartedly but I'm open minded enough to argue WHY you think anyone should be responsible for someone else's comments.
By your logic, Slashdot is (partly?) responsible for THIS comment? And yours? Where do you draw the line? Why should the fact that Slashdot (presumably) makes one off running the site make a difference, why the distinction whether it's for-profit or non-profit?
Of course! We've written an "interesting things" filter just for you. You'll never need to see anybody's post blaspheming against Apple again. But we were stopped from releasing it because Apple already had the patent "method of displaying only nice things that make me happy" so we can't let you use it.
When you have more money than God, prior art? Not a problem. Obviousness? Not a problem.
Yeah, that link totally helps here.
For a start, it shows how Samsung's design radically changed from F700 to Galaxy S (I mean, check it, icons are now in color AND there's color silver appearing on the border now). Also, their marking is incosistent, half of things they crossed out on F700 seems like were crossed just because nobody would bother to check what's written there (really, "The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device." doesn't apply to F700?)
Now there's how specific are tablet related claims:
One question. Why did Apple themselves REMOVE the F700 from their filings?
Here's why:
Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to draw your attention to the F700 which is clearly a copy of the iPhone
Apple lawyer #2: Errr... A moment your honour... [nudges lawyer 1] "(actually the F700 was before the iPhone 1)"
Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to have the F700 excluded from these proceedings as it is not relevant
Because it is further proof that the patent system is not only damaged, but irrepairably broken. This will only speed up it's demise.
I'd like to see the ISPs MRTG graphs, in support of this claim. In theory, they should also have seen a very significant drop in traffic.
Otherwise, "Three strikes law in NZ doubles the number of people switching to Usenet, or using TOR, or other methods" might be more accurate...
The only think that astonishes me about this story, is that anybody is surprised by it.
The sweeping changes that took place post 9/11, and continue to take place, are delivering us inexorably into the stuff of fiction.
Surely they got it wrong, it should have been Island Records / Universal Music Group
Next up:
"Contributor creates world's stupidest headline with a keyboard"
I ran one through the driver once
I say old chap, that's a bit rough, what? I hope you paid his medical expenses and gave him a shilling bonus after that experiment. Toodle pip...
Are we speaking about a different "dilo2k10"?
But anyway you're absolutely right. All he did was lie about it bursting into flames while he drove - he didn't admit he microwaved it.
He did admit that another mouth-breather attempted to recover the phone from water and applied a "large amount of external energy" to it.
I suspect there is a 'd' missing from his online handle.
"Dilo2k10" Quote: "The damage to the phone was caused by another person, although they were attempting to recover the phone from water this later caused the damage shown on the phone. It occurred due to a large amount of external energy and there was no fault with the phone. This was not a deliberate act but a stupid mistake."
FFS what is this doing on the front page?
Not only is it OLD NEWS but the mouth-breather in question already admitted he microwaved the bloody thing after he got it wet...
Great idea, because they've totally mastered predicting the weather here on earth...
D'ya really think they care whether it might be "remotely original"?
The current state of the patent office and the current rounds of litigation would suggest they're not even bothering to pretend any more...