No, Google's results have tended on a downward curve for years now. Composing a search which does not include SEO results involves endless iterations of this process:
and so forth. What doesn't help matters is that many of the sites that are clearly SEO spam also have Google-based ads, so why would Google be interested in removing them? They make money every time you click on one of their pathetic results whether or not the result is topical to the search.
The BSD variants are descended from the original Berkeley Unix codebase, which is simply an enhanced form of original ATT Unix. BSD is Uinx. However, I think that of the BSD variants in use today, only Apple has had theirs certified by the Open Group, which makes it not just Unix but Unix(tm).
The cries of everybody that the profit margin on ebooks is only 5% deafen my ear.
Ebooks are pure revenue, especially considering how lackluster (absent?) editing is these days. The cost is some bits down the line.
I would guess that Amazon and the publishers each make an enormous amount of profit on each ebook sold, and that it only appears that they do not because of Hollywood style accounting.
I do not view Android developers as my competition, as $92 out of every $100 spent on mobile applications in 2010 was spent on the iOS family of devices. Why would I fight with a legion of other people for what amounts to a much more pitiful market full of people who are cheap and got the generic Android that their carrier tossed in "for free" when I can go for both a more numerous and affluent group of consumers, especially if I need to separately test for "an incredible range of devices?"
Explain why they are not tossed in free with the contract then?
If phone A has 90% market share for new units sold, and the profit per phone is $10, and phone B has the other 10%, but profit per unit is $250 who is more profitable?
Furthermore, if $92 out of every $100 spent in mobile app marketplaces is spent on software for phone B, who is more profitable?
Android is the preferred vehicle for the race to the bottom.
HP and Dell sell way more computers than Apple, while making nearly nothing from each one. Apple sells fewer computers by far, and yet makes far more money with each one.
A race to the bottom with almost no profit is not going to help Android beat Apple somehow. He'll, you can't even give away an Android phone *for free* to half the smartphone buyers in the USA, because they don't want what seems like a generic iPhone clone.
How much profit do you think Samsung makes on an Android phone?
It's maybe $25. Apple pulls $200 or more for every iPhone they sell, and they still have over twice as many iPhnes in circulation than all the Android devices combined.
Apple has the phone market all sewn up. Apple owns the phone market like Tyson would own your mom on a first date.
Here's something that may surprise you: Apple doesn't give a fancy flying fuck if Android overtakes iOS in terms of market share. The reason is that Apple owns the whole ecosystem, top to bottom, makes revenue from the phone sale, the contract (so everybody supposes), and application sales. iOS prints money. With Android, on the other hand, it's a race to the bottom that is going on, as all the phone stores on the planet will throw in an Android phone for free with your contract, because they are cheap. Apple makes several hundred bucks on an iPhone before it ever gets activated or turned on, and people are waiting in lines a mile long on launch day to get the latest iPhone. How many android phones do you think Samsung must sell to T Mobile before they make the same profit that one iPhone brings Apple? Ten, maybe twenty?
Apple's strategy is not the same as Microsoft's, or Dell's or HP's. This is why they have been insanely profitable even through the worst economy in 80 years.
Apple still has the mobile phone market sewn up. Android phones are indeed increasing in market share, but this is because they are usually thrown in for free with a contract. Hardly anybody actually buys one for several hundred dollars, on top of the cost of the contract.
Of the programmers and IT professionals I know personally, every single one owns at least one iOS device.
The n900 is for fanny pack geeky fucks who couldn't get laid or wipe their own ass for their girth. See, a broad, totally stupid, and completely incorrect generalization is easy to make, asshole.
Consumers enjoy having one handy place to buy almost any application they can imagine, on a device with an extremely responsive and nice user interface, running by far the best mobile browser ever made.
Consumers also enjoy the fact that their applications have been vetted for quality even though the process might be a bit flawed from a geek's perspective.
They can fuck all care if there is Unix underneath and can't root the bastard.
With that out of the way, despite the fact that Meego is a Linux based OS, do you really think that the various device manufacturers won't take steps to limit your ability to do what you want with it? Many Android phones and tablets are just as well locked down as any iOS device. That goes double for Windowns Syndrome phones.
Slashdot Mirror
"tech event of the decade as far as I'm concerned"
Did you have a Windows 7 house party?
Dude that's a cheap capacitive ipad ripoff with a 7" screen. They say 8" but, it's 7", and it's just a heap of shite.
The iPad includes a 3-ais accelerometer. I don't know if it's a gyroscope or not, but it works.
Sure, buddy.
Try this from a "new" ip, or from a public library. The results are just as bad.
No, Google's results have tended on a downward curve for years now. Composing a search which does not include SEO results involves endless iterations of this process:
bananas, bananas -viagra, bananas -viagra -cialis, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription -poker
and so forth. What doesn't help matters is that many of the sites that are clearly SEO spam also have Google-based ads, so why would Google be interested in removing them? They make money every time you click on one of their pathetic results whether or not the result is topical to the search.
Yep, requirement number one, before they even decided on the form factor, was that it is not to run Flash.
That's totally true.
It's pronounced "exhume."
There is a difference between "peak" and "sustained" and I think you forgot to check the sustained speed of your regular consumer drives.
They only rarely hit 110MB/sec once the buffer is full, and the buffer is full almost instantaneously.
40 or 50 megabytes per second is pretty good for the WD Green drives.
You wouldn't complaining about this if you were a real Slashdotter.
The BSD variants are descended from the original Berkeley Unix codebase, which is simply an enhanced form of original ATT Unix. BSD is Uinx. However, I think that of the BSD variants in use today, only Apple has had theirs certified by the Open Group, which makes it not just Unix but Unix(tm).
The cries of everybody that the profit margin on ebooks is only 5% deafen my ear.
Ebooks are pure revenue, especially considering how lackluster (absent?) editing is these days. The cost is some bits down the line.
I would guess that Amazon and the publishers each make an enormous amount of profit on each ebook sold, and that it only appears that they do not because of Hollywood style accounting.
I do not view Android developers as my competition, as $92 out of every $100 spent on mobile applications in 2010 was spent on the iOS family of devices. Why would I fight with a legion of other people for what amounts to a much more pitiful market full of people who are cheap and got the generic Android that their carrier tossed in "for free" when I can go for both a more numerous and affluent group of consumers, especially if I need to separately test for "an incredible range of devices?"
That's just silly.
Explain why they are not tossed in free with the contract then?
If phone A has 90% market share for new units sold, and the profit per phone is $10, and phone B has the other 10%, but profit per unit is $250 who is more profitable?
Furthermore, if $92 out of every $100 spent in mobile app marketplaces is spent on software for phone B, who is more profitable?
Android is the preferred vehicle for the race to the bottom.
You just explained why people are choosing not to code applications for Android.
No, they are not. They just got their Verizon iPhone a week ago and are perfectly happy with it.
HP and Dell sell way more computers than Apple, while making nearly nothing from each one. Apple sells fewer computers by far, and yet makes far more money with each one.
A race to the bottom with almost no profit is not going to help Android beat Apple somehow. He'll, you can't even give away an Android phone *for free* to half the smartphone buyers in the USA, because they don't want what seems like a generic iPhone clone.
How much profit do you think Samsung makes on an Android phone?
It's maybe $25. Apple pulls $200 or more for every iPhone they sell, and they still have over twice as many iPhnes in circulation than all the Android devices combined.
Apple has the phone market all sewn up. Apple owns the phone market like Tyson would own your mom on a first date.
Here's something that may surprise you: Apple doesn't give a fancy flying fuck if Android overtakes iOS in terms of market share. The reason is that Apple owns the whole ecosystem, top to bottom, makes revenue from the phone sale, the contract (so everybody supposes), and application sales. iOS prints money. With Android, on the other hand, it's a race to the bottom that is going on, as all the phone stores on the planet will throw in an Android phone for free with your contract, because they are cheap. Apple makes several hundred bucks on an iPhone before it ever gets activated or turned on, and people are waiting in lines a mile long on launch day to get the latest iPhone. How many android phones do you think Samsung must sell to T Mobile before they make the same profit that one iPhone brings Apple? Ten, maybe twenty?
Apple's strategy is not the same as Microsoft's, or Dell's or HP's. This is why they have been insanely profitable even through the worst economy in 80 years.
Apple still has the mobile phone market sewn up. Android phones are indeed increasing in market share, but this is because they are usually thrown in for free with a contract. Hardly anybody actually buys one for several hundred dollars, on top of the cost of the contract.
Of the programmers and IT professionals I know personally, every single one owns at least one iOS device.
The n900 is for fanny pack geeky fucks who couldn't get laid or wipe their own ass for their girth. See, a broad, totally stupid, and completely incorrect generalization is easy to make, asshole.
Consumers enjoy having one handy place to buy almost any application they can imagine, on a device with an extremely responsive and nice user interface, running by far the best mobile browser ever made.
Consumers also enjoy the fact that their applications have been vetted for quality even though the process might be a bit flawed from a geek's perspective.
They can fuck all care if there is Unix underneath and can't root the bastard.
With that out of the way, despite the fact that Meego is a Linux based OS, do you really think that the various device manufacturers won't take steps to limit your ability to do what you want with it? Many Android phones and tablets are just as well locked down as any iOS device. That goes double for Windowns Syndrome phones.
My sources inform me that Intel is dead weight as far as Meego development is concerned.
It is totally free to implement and use, unless you are using it too make money by serving streaming video, or selling gadgets with h.264 included.
My point is that there is no way to measure the ultimate fitness of a standard by the process used to arrive at it.
h.264 is not a proprietary codec, in the sense that anybody can implement it, for Free, on any computer, and give it away, anywhere in the world.