Max Q® laptop chips have the Secret Sauce® though. The Secret Sauce® that allows Desktop Class Triple A Title Gaming Performance In A Thin And Light Laptop®.
It's not just chip binning, it's a More Of A Holistic Approach To Power And Performance®
The idea is so subtle it can't even be explained without stringing together meaningless buzzwords copied verbatim from press releases.
Set its composition of 10 members, appointed on a bipartisan and bicameral basis in consultation with relevant Committees. Six members are to be chosen by the congressional majority, the Democrats (three of these by the Speaker of the House and three by the Senate Majority Leader) and four by the congressional minority, the Republicans (two from the House Minority Leader and two from the Senate Minority Leader).
So it was 6:4 Democrat to Republican. So the majority report will obviously reflect Democrat talking points. What about the minority? Well they all disagreed
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Peter Wallison authored a 93-page dissent in which he disagreed with both the majority report and the three other Republican appointees. Wallison argued that the US government's housing policies-implemented primarily through the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-caused the financial crisis. In specific, Wallison named the GSEs' Affordable Housing goals, heightened enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Best Practices Initiative as the primary culprits. According to Wallison, these programs, which were intended to give low- and moderate-income borrowers better access to mortgage credit, ultimately required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the mortgage underwriting standards they used when acquiring loans from originators. Because the GSEs dominated the mortgage market, they set the underwriting standards for the entire industry and pushed private institutions into riskier loans. Wallison concludes that these policies fueled a massive housing bubble full of non-traditional, risky loans that ultimately led to a financial crisis.[15] Regarding the AEI paper, Phil Angelides, chairman of the FCIC, has stated: "The source for this newfound wisdom [is] shopworn data, produced by a consultant to the corporate-funded American Enterprise Institute, which was analyzed and debunked by the FCIC Report."
I.e. the AEI guy criticized both the Democrat majority and the Republicans for ignoring things like the effect the CRA had, not just on Fanny and Freddy loans but to all loans as the whole industry's loans.
And he was right. Look at the bit I quoted. Both the Democrats under Clinton and Republicans under Bush pushed for 'affordable housing' which meant 'lending money to people the banks wouldn't lend money too.
Several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, advocated affordable housing policies in the years leading up to the crisis. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established, for the first time, an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a mandate to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. During the later part of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families, which increased the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income famili
I don't like JavaScript and HTML as application platforms, or really the sort of people who use them.
But if you spend some time in NYC you can't swing a medieval spiked mace without hitting one of them.
Right now I'd probably go for Xamarin and C# for a cross platform app, mainly because I don't like any of these JS frameworks and I don't have time to write code twice. I can see that neither Xamarin nor C# are ideal though.
Or skip the app and deploy a mobile website, which is what Google are pushing here.
Several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, advocated affordable housing policies in the years leading up to the crisis. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established, for the first time, an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a mandate to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. During the later part of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families, which increased the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy annually from the then current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent. Eventually (under the Bush Administration) a 56 percent minimum was established. Additionally, in 2003, "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
Fanny and Freddy were encouraged to underwrite loans to people who shouldn't have got them. Banks knew the FDIC would bail them out and that they were 'too big to fail' so if the FDIC ran out of cash the government could either print money and fix things or see the whole economy disappear.
They also knew if they made profits they could keep them.
The whole system had the wrong set of incentives. People got bonuses and social brownie points for lending to people who couldn't afford the interest. Banks privatised profit and knew they could socialise loss.
When it came time to bail the whole system out Hank Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs, decided to do QE by buying T bills on the open market, which allowed Goldman Sachs to front run the Fed instead of buying them from the Treasury directly.
It has been pointed out that Paulson's plan could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that might benefit largely from the plan. Economic columnists called for more scrutiny of his actions. Questions remain about Paulson's interest, despite having no direct financial interest in Goldman, since he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law. The Goldman Sachs benefit from the AIG bailout was recently estimated as US$12.9 billion and GS was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. Creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach's business during Paulson's tenure as CEO. Opponents argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries.
And of course QE only helps very rich people by blowing up asset prices
People like Buffett maneuver the government into policies that make them billions and then write editorials advocating tax increases that would cost them millions as a quid pro quo.
Mind you if you look at the article it says "An alternative to using leaky feeder in underground railways is to use Distributed Antenna System (DAS). A DAS system was deployed in some New York City Subway stations by Transit Wireless to provide WiFi and mobile phone and data coverage for customers."
Actually in NYC if you're in the station the Transit Wireless usually works. It's if you're on the train in tunnel between stations it doesn't. Also, irritatingly, Transit Wireless does a captive portal scheme so you need to click 'Connect' on the captive portal page to get a signal. That's slow enough that you often can't do it before the train leaves the station.
I.e. once you're on the train, you only get small bursts of internet connectivity.
Of course most subway providers find it hard enough to provide trains reliably, let alone Wifi or 3G signals in tunnels.
Even in Taipei, which has an excellent, cheap, clean and reliable subway service you're not going to get much of a mobile signal on the train.
And it's not like there's any competition in subway providers in any city.
And of course if you head out of the city, you're probably not going to get much more than GPRS data rates because you're miles from the nearest cell tower.
I blame tech bloggers myself. I like the S5 because it had a removable battery. Tech bloggers complained the back looked like a band aid and the design 'felt cheap'.
Then they released the S6 which had no removable battery and no SD card. Basically they were copying Apple. And the tech bloggers gave it points for improvement
It's not okay to make a cheap-looking phone anymore.
I'm surprised he didn't say "it's, like, totally problematic to make a cheap looking phone"
Now that Apple is finally making big phones, and even the cheapest Android phones feel nice, we all expect more from Samsung - and rightly so. A flagship phone has to be great or it's going to get laughed out of the room. If the Galaxy S6 was another plasticky, boring phone like last year's Galaxy S5 or if it merely introduced a few hardware tricks, it would have gotten laughed out of the entire neighborhood.
There is a version of the phone with a hardware trick, the Galaxy S6 Edge with a curved display. But that's a distraction; the real story is that Samsung needed to learn that hardware prowess and software features are tools you use to build something great, not ends in themselves. Most Galaxy phones are uninspired compilations of spec lists. For the S6, Samsung to needed to find inspiration, and it did: in Apple.
The Galaxy S6 is what happens when Samsung doesn't try to copy Apple's phones, but instead finally tries to copy Apple's product philosophy.
The first thing to know about the S6 is that it doesn't feel much like other Samsung phones. Instead of a plastic or faux-leather back, it's glass on the front and the back with metal around the rim. We've seen other phones do this, but none have done it so well. The Galaxy S6 looks great and feels even better.
The edges are subtly textured from flat to curved in all the right spots. The seams between the glass and the metal are nigh-microscopic, and the whole thing just feels fantastic. It weighs just a hair more than an iPhone 6, and it's slightly bigger as well. But I actually find it easier to hold and to reach the far corners because the glass is less likely to slip than the iPhone's metal finish. It glides into a pocket and stays in my hand.
If you wanted to go hunting for problems, you could find them. Maybe the Gorilla Glass 4 won't hold up to drops or could be prone to scratching (neither has been the case for me so far). The camera bump on the back is an overly large wart. That's about it, from a straight physical design perspective. And in both cases, I'm simply not worried about it.
Then there's the elephant in the room: it really does remind you of the iPhone. This isn't a straight rip, of course. From the front, it's the spitting image of the Galaxy S5. The back is glass, and the curves fit Samsung's traditional Galaxy shape instead of iPhone's rounded rectangle. But take a look at the bottom of each phone: You'll find the same perfectly machined holes and ports in basically identical spots. Samsung also dropped the removable battery, the microSD storage expansion, and even the waterproofing, all in the name of design.
THE GALAXY S6 LOOKS GREAT AND FEELS EVEN BETTER
This comparison is the makings of an epic argument between partisans of both companies (and I'm sure you will get a taste of that if you read the comments below). But I really don't care if Samsung copied any particular iPhone design element or not. What I care about is that it really does seem like Samsung finally got around to copying the most important thing: a fully conceived, well-executed design.
It's actually remarkable to see a Samsung device where design feels like it was a consideration from the start, not something applied only after the component list was compiled. Go ahead and have your battles about which is better, who copied who, and even whether it's worth los
Yup, Google seem to be going the way Microsoft did once they got too much market share.
As much as despise Apple's overpriced, locked in ecosystem debugging on it is a joy. Breakpoints work for example. On Google's more open ecosystem as someone put it 'Nothing works, everything keeps changing and no one knows why'.
Reliable - Load instantly and never show the downasaur, even in uncertain network conditions
Jeremy Keith A web developer and author living and working in Brighton, England.
Why does that not surprise me? Brighton is basically the hipster capital of the UK.
Likewise, Progressive Web Apps consist of:
1. HTTPS, 2. A service worker, and 3. A Web App Manifest
It seems like cache some html pages. They have an Javascript worker thread, and the thread queries the remote server. If there's no connection to the server you get the cached html page with the old data rather than that irritating T Rex jumping cactuses game that you'd otherwise get in Chrome Mobile.
I suppose it's progress of a sort - Google have finally realised that not everyone has a internet connection all the time. Then again that's rather obvious - even in somewhere like NYC you lose your network connection on the subway between stops so an application which needs a connection all the time to run is unusable. Also it's a lot easier to find developers who can do Javascript and HTML than it is ones who can do Java.
It's getting much harder for smartphone companies to really differentiate their products, especially if they don't already have a loyal user base like the ones Apple and Samsung enjoy. In various marketing campaigns, HTC has tried pushing the high quality of its smartphones' hardware, Nokia has tried selling us on its killer camera and LG has tried hyping up buttons that live on the back, and not the front, of the smartphone. However, there's one spec that matters to users more than any other than many smartphone vendors have seemingly overlooked in their ad campaigns: Battery life.
The Guardian directs our attention to a new survey from U.K.-based research firm GMI that asked British smartphone users what features were important to them when it comes to deciding on a new smartphone. Fully 89% of them said that battery life was important to them, more than 20 percentage points higher than the number of people who said buying from a trusted brand was important to them. This suggests that there's a significant chunk of smartphone buyers out there who might conceivably jump at a phone from a relatively unknown vendor if it could give them top-notch battery life.
This new research gels with research released by IDC earlier this month that similarly showed that battery life has become the single most important factor for people who are buying smartphones. In that survey, 56% of Android buyers, 49% of iPhone buyers and 53% of Windows Phone buyers said that battery life was a key reason they bought their particular device, whereas just which 33% of Android users, 39% of iPhone users and 38% of Windows Phone users said ease of use was a key reason.
So here's a free piece of advice to any smartphone vendor that's struggling to gain traction in a market that's dominated by Apple and Samsung: Develop a phone of reasonable thinness that also boasts insanely great battery life and market its battery power to death.
If you can swap the battery with a fresh one off the charger, then charge time is less important. If the battery is non removable then it is important.
Samsung obviously pushed things too far and ended up with a phone that blew up.
Now if they'd have stuck to removable batteries they could have avoided that. Hell, just sell the phone, a spare battery and a charger as a bundle, as they apparently did with S2s for a while in Korea. They used to run ads mocking Apple devices for not having a removable battery too.
Unfortunately it seems like they're going to keep pushing thinness, sleek aluminium and glass design, higher resolution displays and non removable batteries as features, even though there's no real evidence that people who actually buy their phones care about that stuff.
I.e. they've made a terrible mistake - their marketing pushed features that they knew people cared about. And then in later models they dropped those features and tried to convince everyone other stuff mattered more.
Mips sued Lexra. Lexra's chips didn't implement the patented instructions in the Mips instruction set but Mips argued that since the unimplemented patented instructions faulted, like other invalid instructions, it was theoretically possible for a user of the chip to emulate them in software and thus violate the patent. Lexra went bust without that argument being decided. The Intel Transmeta case was settled. So it's not clear what would happen if Intel sued either Microsoft or a hardware vendor over an emulator which allowed patented instructions to run on ARM
And before you talk about that being the same as banning compilers and assemblers it's not the same thing. An assembler or compiler that generates NEON instructions from assembler or C is not the same legally as a JIT compiler which generates them from x86 binaries in order to run them on ARM.
As someone once put it "Bits have color". The "color" in this case is intent - even though assemblers, compilers and JITs generate NEON instructions only the JIT does it to violate a patent. Intent matters legally, even if it doesn't in computer science and engineering.
Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation ("code morphing") techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta's x86 implementation even though it used emulation.
I.e. it doesn't matter if you execute an SSE instruction directly in hardware, or if you translate it to an ARM NEON instruction and execute that, it is still violating the patent.
In the Intel/Transmeta cases Transmeta sued Intel first, Intel then countersued over code code morphing violating SSE patents. The end result was a cross-licensing agreement. And then Transmeta failed due to poor sales.
Intel's patent lawsuit with Transmeta resulted in only a set of counteracting settlements and a cross-licensing agreement. Transmeta would shutter its doors some time later due to disappointing sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Do those shills on Youtube get free hardware in return for good reviews? How about sites like TomsHardware?
Max Q® laptop chips have the Secret Sauce® though. The Secret Sauce® that allows Desktop Class Triple A Title Gaming Performance In A Thin And Light Laptop®.
It's not just chip binning, it's a More Of A Holistic Approach To Power And Performance®
The idea is so subtle it can't even be explained without stringing together meaningless buzzwords copied verbatim from press releases.
Plausibly.
I wonder if a 'planned obsolescence' email will ever leak from Samsung?
Censorship, nominally aimed at protecting people from a problem, always ends up being used to shut down discussion of the problem.
How about FreeXWorks, i.e. a vxWorks clone.
vxWorks is objectively the best OS that has ever existed. Or ever will exist.
Et Tu, Perens!
Man, the pro-Russian shilling on here is getting out of hand.
Zeus was beyond good and evil, in the Nietzschean sense. A bit like Trump!
Yeah, I saw that too. However look at the WIki for the FCIC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Set its composition of 10 members, appointed on a bipartisan and bicameral basis in consultation with relevant Committees. Six members are to be chosen by the congressional majority, the Democrats (three of these by the Speaker of the House and three by the Senate Majority Leader) and four by the congressional minority, the Republicans (two from the House Minority Leader and two from the Senate Minority Leader).
So it was 6:4 Democrat to Republican. So the majority report will obviously reflect Democrat talking points. What about the minority? Well they all disagreed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Look at the Wallison statement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Peter Wallison authored a 93-page dissent in which he disagreed with both the majority report and the three other Republican appointees. Wallison argued that the US government's housing policies-implemented primarily through the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-caused the financial crisis. In specific, Wallison named the GSEs' Affordable Housing goals, heightened enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Best Practices Initiative as the primary culprits. According to Wallison, these programs, which were intended to give low- and moderate-income borrowers better access to mortgage credit, ultimately required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the mortgage underwriting standards they used when acquiring loans from originators. Because the GSEs dominated the mortgage market, they set the underwriting standards for the entire industry and pushed private institutions into riskier loans. Wallison concludes that these policies fueled a massive housing bubble full of non-traditional, risky loans that ultimately led to a financial crisis.[15] Regarding the AEI paper, Phil Angelides, chairman of the FCIC, has stated: "The source for this newfound wisdom [is] shopworn data, produced by a consultant to the corporate-funded American Enterprise Institute, which was analyzed and debunked by the FCIC Report."
I.e. the AEI guy criticized both the Democrat majority and the Republicans for ignoring things like the effect the CRA had, not just on Fanny and Freddy loans but to all loans as the whole industry's loans.
And he was right. Look at the bit I quoted. Both the Democrats under Clinton and Republicans under Bush pushed for 'affordable housing' which meant 'lending money to people the banks wouldn't lend money too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, advocated affordable housing policies in the years leading up to the crisis. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established, for the first time, an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a mandate to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. During the later part of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families, which increased the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income famili
Bitcoin is creating an anarcho capitalist paradise where you can make $87 million dealing drug and hire hitmen to take out rival drug dealers, all without leaving the house. How is that not 'real work'?
It's pathogenic and antibiotic resistant too. Lovely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you're bored about hearing about tulips, here are some other famous bubbles, all of which lead to people who went all in losing all their money
https://www.investopedia.com/a...
I don't like JavaScript and HTML as application platforms, or really the sort of people who use them.
But if you spend some time in NYC you can't swing a medieval spiked mace without hitting one of them.
Right now I'd probably go for Xamarin and C# for a cross platform app, mainly because I don't like any of these JS frameworks and I don't have time to write code twice. I can see that neither Xamarin nor C# are ideal though.
Or skip the app and deploy a mobile website, which is what Google are pushing here.
Maybe they can dress Travolta up in a green bitch costume and he can dance in the background....?
Poor old Travolta. He's queer as a clockwork orange and Scientology is probably using that against him to keep him in line
Europa the moon and Europe the continent are both named after the same mythical character
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Loads of London hipsters moved there and gentrified the place.
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/...
Now it's Shoreditch by Sea.
You can make a case that the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by the government forcing banks to lend money to people who were likely to default
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, advocated affordable housing policies in the years leading up to the crisis. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established, for the first time, an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a mandate to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. During the later part of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families, which increased the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy annually from the then current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent. Eventually (under the Bush Administration) a 56 percent minimum was established. Additionally, in 2003, "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
Fanny and Freddy were encouraged to underwrite loans to people who shouldn't have got them. Banks knew the FDIC would bail them out and that they were 'too big to fail' so if the FDIC ran out of cash the government could either print money and fix things or see the whole economy disappear.
They also knew if they made profits they could keep them.
The whole system had the wrong set of incentives. People got bonuses and social brownie points for lending to people who couldn't afford the interest. Banks privatised profit and knew they could socialise loss.
When it came time to bail the whole system out Hank Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs, decided to do QE by buying T bills on the open market, which allowed Goldman Sachs to front run the Fed instead of buying them from the Treasury directly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And Paulson had a clear conflict of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It has been pointed out that Paulson's plan could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that might benefit largely from the plan. Economic columnists called for more scrutiny of his actions. Questions remain about Paulson's interest, despite having no direct financial interest in Goldman, since he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law. The Goldman Sachs benefit from the AIG bailout was recently estimated as US$12.9 billion and GS was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. Creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach's business during Paulson's tenure as CEO. Opponents argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries.
And of course QE only helps very rich people by blowing up asset prices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People like Buffett maneuver the government into policies that make them billions and then write editorials advocating tax increases that would cost them millions as a quid pro quo.
I.e. t
Someone really needs to launch TulipCoin.
It's true in Stockholm too - they installed 'leaky feeders'
Mind you if you look at the article it says "An alternative to using leaky feeder in underground railways is to use Distributed Antenna System (DAS). A DAS system was deployed in some New York City Subway stations by Transit Wireless to provide WiFi and mobile phone and data coverage for customers."
Actually in NYC if you're in the station the Transit Wireless usually works. It's if you're on the train in tunnel between stations it doesn't. Also, irritatingly, Transit Wireless does a captive portal scheme so you need to click 'Connect' on the captive portal page to get a signal. That's slow enough that you often can't do it before the train leaves the station.
I.e. once you're on the train, you only get small bursts of internet connectivity.
Of course most subway providers find it hard enough to provide trains reliably, let alone Wifi or 3G signals in tunnels.
Even in Taipei, which has an excellent, cheap, clean and reliable subway service you're not going to get much of a mobile signal on the train.
And it's not like there's any competition in subway providers in any city.
And of course if you head out of the city, you're probably not going to get much more than GPRS data rates because you're miles from the nearest cell tower.
I blame tech bloggers myself. I like the S5 because it had a removable battery. Tech bloggers complained the back looked like a band aid and the design 'felt cheap'.
Then they released the S6 which had no removable battery and no SD card. Basically they were copying Apple. And the tech bloggers gave it points for improvement
https://www.theverge.com/2015/...
It's not okay to make a cheap-looking phone anymore.
I'm surprised he didn't say "it's, like, totally problematic to make a cheap looking phone"
Now that Apple is finally making big phones, and even the cheapest Android phones feel nice, we all expect more from Samsung - and rightly so. A flagship phone has to be great or it's going to get laughed out of the room. If the Galaxy S6 was another plasticky, boring phone like last year's Galaxy S5 or if it merely introduced a few hardware tricks, it would have gotten laughed out of the entire neighborhood.
There is a version of the phone with a hardware trick, the Galaxy S6 Edge with a curved display. But that's a distraction; the real story is that Samsung needed to learn that hardware prowess and software features are tools you use to build something great, not ends in themselves. Most Galaxy phones are uninspired compilations of spec lists. For the S6, Samsung to needed to find inspiration, and it did: in Apple.
The Galaxy S6 is what happens when Samsung doesn't try to copy Apple's phones, but instead finally tries to copy Apple's product philosophy.
The first thing to know about the S6 is that it doesn't feel much like other Samsung phones. Instead of a plastic or faux-leather back, it's glass on the front and the back with metal around the rim. We've seen other phones do this, but none have done it so well. The Galaxy S6 looks great and feels even better.
The edges are subtly textured from flat to curved in all the right spots. The seams between the glass and the metal are nigh-microscopic, and the whole thing just feels fantastic. It weighs just a hair more than an iPhone 6, and it's slightly bigger as well. But I actually find it easier to hold and to reach the far corners because the glass is less likely to slip than the iPhone's metal finish. It glides into a pocket and stays in my hand.
If you wanted to go hunting for problems, you could find them. Maybe the Gorilla Glass 4 won't hold up to drops or could be prone to scratching (neither has been the case for me so far). The camera bump on the back is an overly large wart. That's about it, from a straight physical design perspective. And in both cases, I'm simply not worried about it.
Then there's the elephant in the room: it really does remind you of the iPhone. This isn't a straight rip, of course. From the front, it's the spitting image of the Galaxy S5. The back is glass, and the curves fit Samsung's traditional Galaxy shape instead of iPhone's rounded rectangle. But take a look at the bottom of each phone: You'll find the same perfectly machined holes and ports in basically identical spots. Samsung also dropped the removable battery, the microSD storage expansion, and even the waterproofing, all in the name of design.
THE GALAXY S6 LOOKS GREAT AND FEELS EVEN BETTER
This comparison is the makings of an epic argument between partisans of both companies (and I'm sure you will get a taste of that if you read the comments below). But I really don't care if Samsung copied any particular iPhone design element or not. What I care about is that it really does seem like Samsung finally got around to copying the most important thing: a fully conceived, well-executed design.
It's actually remarkable to see a Samsung device where design feels like it was a consideration from the start, not something applied only after the component list was compiled. Go ahead and have your battles about which is better, who copied who, and even whether it's worth los
Yup, Google seem to be going the way Microsoft did once they got too much market share.
As much as despise Apple's overpriced, locked in ecosystem debugging on it is a joy. Breakpoints work for example. On Google's more open ecosystem as someone put it 'Nothing works, everything keeps changing and no one knows why'.
https://medium.com/@adactio/wh...
Reliable - Load instantly and never show the downasaur, even in uncertain network conditions
Jeremy Keith
A web developer and author living and working in Brighton, England.
Why does that not surprise me? Brighton is basically the hipster capital of the UK.
Likewise, Progressive Web Apps consist of:
1. HTTPS,
2. A service worker, and
3. A Web App Manifest
It seems like cache some html pages. They have an Javascript worker thread, and the thread queries the remote server. If there's no connection to the server you get the cached html page with the old data rather than that irritating T Rex jumping cactuses game that you'd otherwise get in Chrome Mobile.
I suppose it's progress of a sort - Google have finally realised that not everyone has a internet connection all the time. Then again that's rather obvious - even in somewhere like NYC you lose your network connection on the subway between stops so an application which needs a connection all the time to run is unusable. Also it's a lot easier to find developers who can do Javascript and HTML than it is ones who can do Java.
The Note 7 was the biggest disaster they've had. And why did it happen?
I'd say it's because they knew if they were trying to cram as large a battery in as they could and reduce the charging times as much as possible.
Why did they have to do that? Because they chose a non removable battery and they also knew that concerns about battery life rate pretty highly
http://bgr.com/2014/05/21/best...
It's getting much harder for smartphone companies to really differentiate their products, especially if they don't already have a loyal user base like the ones Apple and Samsung enjoy. In various marketing campaigns, HTC has tried pushing the high quality of its smartphones' hardware, Nokia has tried selling us on its killer camera and LG has tried hyping up buttons that live on the back, and not the front, of the smartphone. However, there's one spec that matters to users more than any other than many smartphone vendors have seemingly overlooked in their ad campaigns: Battery life.
The Guardian directs our attention to a new survey from U.K.-based research firm GMI that asked British smartphone users what features were important to them when it comes to deciding on a new smartphone. Fully 89% of them said that battery life was important to them, more than 20 percentage points higher than the number of people who said buying from a trusted brand was important to them. This suggests that there's a significant chunk of smartphone buyers out there who might conceivably jump at a phone from a relatively unknown vendor if it could give them top-notch battery life.
This new research gels with research released by IDC earlier this month that similarly showed that battery life has become the single most important factor for people who are buying smartphones. In that survey, 56% of Android buyers, 49% of iPhone buyers and 53% of Windows Phone buyers said that battery life was a key reason they bought their particular device, whereas just which 33% of Android users, 39% of iPhone users and 38% of Windows Phone users said ease of use was a key reason.
So here's a free piece of advice to any smartphone vendor that's struggling to gain traction in a market that's dominated by Apple and Samsung: Develop a phone of reasonable thinness that also boasts insanely great battery life and market its battery power to death.
If you can swap the battery with a fresh one off the charger, then charge time is less important. If the battery is non removable then it is important.
Samsung obviously pushed things too far and ended up with a phone that blew up.
Now if they'd have stuck to removable batteries they could have avoided that. Hell, just sell the phone, a spare battery and a charger as a bundle, as they apparently did with S2s for a while in Korea. They used to run ads mocking Apple devices for not having a removable battery too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Unfortunately it seems like they're going to keep pushing thinness, sleek aluminium and glass design, higher resolution displays and non removable batteries as features, even though there's no real evidence that people who actually buy their phones care about that stuff.
I.e. they've made a terrible mistake - their marketing pushed features that they knew people cared about. And then in later models they dropped those features and tried to convince everyone other stuff mattered more.
Quentin ... you magnificent bastard! I saw your films!
Mips sued Lexra. Lexra's chips didn't implement the patented instructions in the Mips instruction set but Mips argued that since the unimplemented patented instructions faulted, like other invalid instructions, it was theoretically possible for a user of the chip to emulate them in software and thus violate the patent. Lexra went bust without that argument being decided. The Intel Transmeta case was settled. So it's not clear what would happen if Intel sued either Microsoft or a hardware vendor over an emulator which allowed patented instructions to run on ARM
http://probell.com/lexra/
And before you talk about that being the same as banning compilers and assemblers it's not the same thing. An assembler or compiler that generates NEON instructions from assembler or C is not the same legally as a JIT compiler which generates them from x86 binaries in order to run them on ARM.
As someone once put it "Bits have color". The "color" in this case is intent - even though assemblers, compilers and JITs generate NEON instructions only the JIT does it to violate a patent. Intent matters legally, even if it doesn't in computer science and engineering.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry...
They sued Transmeta, which did code morphing.
Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation ("code morphing") techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta's x86 implementation even though it used emulation.
I.e. it doesn't matter if you execute an SSE instruction directly in hardware, or if you translate it to an ARM NEON instruction and execute that, it is still violating the patent.
In the Intel/Transmeta cases Transmeta sued Intel first, Intel then countersued over code code morphing violating SSE patents. The end result was a cross-licensing agreement. And then Transmeta failed due to poor sales.
https://www.eetimes.com/author...
Intel's patent lawsuit with Transmeta resulted in only a set of counteracting settlements and a cross-licensing agreement. Transmeta would shutter its doors some time later due to disappointing sales.