One thing that the iPhone showed us is that it's essentially consumers who will decide whether a smartphone OS will make it. They don't give a shit about what carriers have the phone or what manufacturers use. If they want it bad enough they will consciously choose it.
Android hasn't had the many years of development and marketing that alternatives have had, but in the long run I see it as the only serious competitor to the iPhone.
You don't think every company is dying (npi) too find the cure for cancer?
Sure they are. But they're almost equally interested in pushing and marketing ineffective treatments at an expensive price. They're interested in pushing their new and patented drugs as better than existing cheap generic drugs They're also dying to find the next Viagra.
It's actually worse in this case because the numbers chosen (62 miles vs 100) give misleading precision. It's just the result of a reporter punching numbers in a calculator, but he did change the content.
PS: I find it funny, albeit regrettable, that every time someone on Slashdot points out an inappropriate use of imperial measurements there is always a backlash of people who have to defend and justify them, trying to argue that measurements are all arbitrary and the systems are equally useful, when clearly they're not. Me, I don't mind about looking silly. I'm just interested in peoples reactions;-)
There's more data going through the processor, but it's still only one operation. Is the word length really a limiting factor today? Isn't what you described more of a parallel processing thing?
Mainly limitations involved with x86 processors. The x64 architecture is a sensible and compatible revision. There are other advantages which are not necessarily tied to the word-length of the architecture.
There's no way that management came up with this one. This is exactly the kind of hardware you'd expect from a designer with a vision, but out of touch with reality. It was designed to have longer battery life, be more portable, and rid itself from unnecessary clunk. Using spinning plastic for storage is wasteful in a modern handheld.
What really screwed this one were the marketing decisions. Downloads should be cheaper than physical media, full stop. And system which is cheaper to make should be cheaper to buy.
Wii Menu version 4.2 is now available for your Wii console. To update your Wii Menu to the latest version, please select the Update button at the bottom of the screen or select the System Update option in the Wii System Settings.
This update provides behind-the-scenes fixes that will not affect features but will improve the overall system performance.
Because unauthorized modifications to save data or program files may impair game play or the Wii console, updating to Wii Menu version 4.2 will also check for and automatically remove such save data or program files.
**Please note: If you've updated your Wii Menu after 9/29/09, you may not need to update again.
Oh come on! I know that Slashdotters will probably be more likely to some homebrew stuff than not, but acting as if all those Modchips and Card-Readers that are sold are so that people can spend their time trying homebrew apps and only play previously purchased games is delusion beyond belief.
This is solely about Piracy. It's not even about the region-lock. It's an attempt to slow down the piracy that is eroding markets.
It's perfectly legal, because updating is voluntary and you have to confirm it every time. They say that it may brick modded consoles. This time they even explicitly say it deletes modified software. There's really no reason to be up in arms.
The difference is that C and C++ applications are generally compiled before they're distributed, wheras Javascript is interpreted directly from source code on the web.
It's not about the app store, which they can make if they want. It's about running software in general. If I buy a computer I should be able to run whichever program I want.
That's coming from a totally different world of Games consoles. The last we saw consoles allow user-created code was in the 80s with BASIC interpreters. Microsoft have been very progressive with their XNA.
What kind of weird store do you shop at? Potato area? Plaques for potato sizes and types? Grocery stores are much more similar to the ribbon-style menu. You go to the fresh fruit and veg department. There you will find diverse products on display. The most popular items are in prominent places. They might have a box with sacks of potatoes or onions in the middle of the area. It isn't unusual to find individually sold spuds on the other side of the department. Organic produce is typically grouped together for shoppers with a preference for them. Everything is highly visual, right down to the plastic trays they use on a 30Â slope to so you can see the whole selection. You don't need a Pineapple icon when you have beautiful juicy fruit filling up the aisles.
Not true. This is probably the main difficulty OpenOffice has had with adoption. Even though almost every single item that is in MSOffice is in there somewhere, they're distributed differently and named slightly different. While it isn't an inherent disadvantage, people who have been working with MSOffice for years and have basically programmed their brains to doing things in that environment initially keep tripping up when looking for functions. As most people working with office applications aren't exactly doing it for fun, they get impatient and blame the software. They get the idea that just because they couldn't do things immediately that it's inferior, especially coupled with the fact that MSOfiice costs a lot of money and people think expensive=good.
I've seen people crap out because of where the default cursor starts. Most of these people also have no patience to just go and google their problem.
It's a shame that there's now a bias towards the Ribbon because it came from Microsoft. One of the few useful novelties in their UI and people start to complain.
True. I would probably say though that Astronomy without a telescope is more interesting than with one. You can learn the constellations and see how the planets move across them. Or how meteor showers originate from the same patch of sky. Or viewing predicted transits or man-made satellites. With a telescope you try to concentrate too much on how good you see something rather than what you're seeing.
Don't bet on it. First of all you're going to need a stable tripod, probably costing as much as the telescope itself. Even at best you will end up seeing an oval blur unless you start using 6+ inch for a refractive telescope.
Noble intentions indeed. Call me a skeptic, but when you can get a basic refractive telescope plus tripod (which will easily cost more than the scope itself) for under $40 I'm not exactly enthusiastic about this. And when kids find out that all they can do is look at the moon and get headaches, they'll learn one thing: Astronomy without super-expensive equipment is boring.
You don't need DiSEqC for a Freesat setup because it's all coming from one satellite!
You don't need network compatibility between OSs in a Windows server setup because it all comes from one vendor.
That's what you sound like. If you want any other channels apart from the ones on Astra2 (which btw isn't a single satellite), you need Diseqc.
I don't see why such functionality would be prohibited for Freesat boxes that wanted to offer other channels
Well I got news for you: It is. Freesat boxes which can receive other channels delete the list and won't allow you to access the program guide. It's a requirement.
but you're right there aren't many Freesat receivers (yet) because it's a tiny market.
The reason why there are so few is because freesat are highly selective with "partners". I wouldn't consider 350000 units to date a tiny market either.
Why would you think a corporation with a £3 bn government mandated income cares about controlling a minority technology market while they've no intentions to broadcast their programmes encrypted (they ditched encryption through Sky in 2003).
I don't care why they do, I just think they shouldn't. Why should we have to explain intentions before doing something against someone misbehaving?
I don't see what nefarious motivation you're ascribing to their actions here.
Trying to control the television media market instead of concentrating on fulfilling their obligations as a public service.
The restriction they're talking about is *trivial* for any "non-compliant" manufacturer to work around
Considering that the decoding documents are *secret* and *unpublished*, I would consider it a major obstacle.
Polarized solutions are far more technically challenging. While it works well for theaters who have money for an expensive silver screen and projectors, there are no practical ways of reproducing the effect with typical bright-room TV sets. Also, polarization filters, even circular ones, always let some of the other light bleed through, which could impede contrast and sharpness.
Stereoscopic images accurately depict the complete visual sensation from a fixed view. Our eyes are 2D sensors, and stereoscopic vision allows for interpretation of depth, but they are not true 3D sensors.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that the iPhone showed us is that it's essentially consumers who will decide whether a smartphone OS will make it. They don't give a shit about what carriers have the phone or what manufacturers use. If they want it bad enough they will consciously choose it.
Android hasn't had the many years of development and marketing that alternatives have had, but in the long run I see it as the only serious competitor to the iPhone.
You don't think every company is dying (npi) too find the cure for cancer?
Sure they are. But they're almost equally interested in pushing and marketing ineffective treatments at an expensive price. They're interested in pushing their new and patented drugs as better than existing cheap generic drugs They're also dying to find the next Viagra.
I just think they've got their priorities wrong.
It's actually worse in this case because the numbers chosen (62 miles vs 100) give misleading precision. It's just the result of a reporter punching numbers in a calculator, but he did change the content.
PS: I find it funny, albeit regrettable, that every time someone on Slashdot points out an inappropriate use of imperial measurements there is always a backlash of people who have to defend and justify them, trying to argue that measurements are all arbitrary and the systems are equally useful, when clearly they're not. ;-)
Me, I don't mind about looking silly. I'm just interested in peoples reactions
There's more data going through the processor, but it's still only one operation. Is the word length really a limiting factor today?
Isn't what you described more of a parallel processing thing?
Mainly limitations involved with x86 processors. The x64 architecture is a sensible and compatible revision. There are other advantages which are not necessarily tied to the word-length of the architecture.
There's no way that management came up with this one. This is exactly the kind of hardware you'd expect from a designer with a vision, but out of touch with reality.
It was designed to have longer battery life, be more portable, and rid itself from unnecessary clunk. Using spinning plastic for storage is wasteful in a modern handheld.
What really screwed this one were the marketing decisions. Downloads should be cheaper than physical media, full stop. And system which is cheaper to make should be cheaper to buy.
I assume when you talk about card readers you're talking about the DS?
Yes I am.
I don't have a DS.
That adds nothing ;-)
I use the homebrew channel on the Wii to play Quake and Tyrian and do some other stuff the Wii usually won't let you do.
Congratulations, you belong to a minority.
I didn't even know you coul duse the homebrew software to play pirated games.
Well, that's what most people use it for. They just don't blog about it on the internet.
What, Nintendo's actions or the Wii homebrew scene?
Nintendo's actions of course. I kind of thought the sentence that followed made that clear.
Oh come on! I know that Slashdotters will probably be more likely to some homebrew stuff than not, but acting as if all those Modchips and Card-Readers that are sold are so that people can spend their time trying homebrew apps and only play previously purchased games is delusion beyond belief.
This is solely about Piracy. It's not even about the region-lock. It's an attempt to slow down the piracy that is eroding markets.
It's perfectly legal, because updating is voluntary and you have to confirm it every time. They say that it may brick modded consoles. This time they even explicitly say it deletes modified software. There's really no reason to be up in arms.
The difference is that C and C++ applications are generally compiled before they're distributed, wheras Javascript is interpreted directly from source code on the web.
No, it's just rediculous that you can't run software which hasn't been in their store.
It's not about the app store, which they can make if they want. It's about running software in general. If I buy a computer I should be able to run whichever program I want.
That's coming from a totally different world of Games consoles. The last we saw consoles allow user-created code was in the 80s with BASIC interpreters. Microsoft have been very progressive with their XNA.
You must be kidding! For all purposes beige is dead, black is the new beige, and white is the new black.
What kind of weird store do you shop at? Potato area? Plaques for potato sizes and types?
Grocery stores are much more similar to the ribbon-style menu. You go to the fresh fruit and veg department. There you will find diverse products on display. The most popular items are in prominent places. They might have a box with sacks of potatoes or onions in the middle of the area. It isn't unusual to find individually sold spuds on the other side of the department. Organic produce is typically grouped together for shoppers with a preference for them. Everything is highly visual, right down to the plastic trays they use on a 30Â slope to so you can see the whole selection. You don't need a Pineapple icon when you have beautiful juicy fruit filling up the aisles.
Not true. This is probably the main difficulty OpenOffice has had with adoption. Even though almost every single item that is in MSOffice is in there somewhere, they're distributed differently and named slightly different.
While it isn't an inherent disadvantage, people who have been working with MSOffice for years and have basically programmed their brains to doing things in that environment initially keep tripping up when looking for functions. As most people working with office applications aren't exactly doing it for fun, they get impatient and blame the software. They get the idea that just because they couldn't do things immediately that it's inferior, especially coupled with the fact that MSOfiice costs a lot of money and people think expensive=good.
I've seen people crap out because of where the default cursor starts. Most of these people also have no patience to just go and google their problem.
It's a shame that there's now a bias towards the Ribbon because it came from Microsoft. One of the few useful novelties in their UI and people start to complain.
True. I would probably say though that Astronomy without a telescope is more interesting than with one. You can learn the constellations and see how the planets move across them. Or how meteor showers originate from the same patch of sky. Or viewing predicted transits or man-made satellites. With a telescope you try to concentrate too much on how good you see something rather than what you're seeing.
since something good enough to see Saturn's rings
Don't bet on it. First of all you're going to need a stable tripod, probably costing as much as the telescope itself. Even at best you will end up seeing an oval blur unless you start using 6+ inch for a refractive telescope.
Noble intentions indeed.
Call me a skeptic, but when you can get a basic refractive telescope plus tripod (which will easily cost more than the scope itself) for under $40 I'm not exactly enthusiastic about this. And when kids find out that all they can do is look at the moon and get headaches, they'll learn one thing: Astronomy without super-expensive equipment is boring.
You don't need DiSEqC for a Freesat setup because it's all coming from one satellite!
You don't need network compatibility between OSs in a Windows server setup because it all comes from one vendor.
That's what you sound like. If you want any other channels apart from the ones on Astra2 (which btw isn't a single satellite), you need Diseqc.
I don't see why such functionality would be prohibited for Freesat boxes that wanted to offer other channels
Well I got news for you: It is. Freesat boxes which can receive other channels delete the list and won't allow you to access the program guide. It's a requirement.
but you're right there aren't many Freesat receivers (yet) because it's a tiny market.
The reason why there are so few is because freesat are highly selective with "partners". I wouldn't consider 350000 units to date a tiny market either.
Why would you think a corporation with a £3 bn government mandated income cares about controlling a minority technology market while they've no intentions to broadcast their programmes encrypted (they ditched encryption through Sky in 2003).
I don't care why they do, I just think they shouldn't. Why should we have to explain intentions before doing something against someone misbehaving?
I don't see what nefarious motivation you're ascribing to their actions here.
Trying to control the television media market instead of concentrating on fulfilling their obligations as a public service.
The restriction they're talking about is *trivial* for any "non-compliant" manufacturer to work around
Considering that the decoding documents are *secret* and *unpublished*, I would consider it a major obstacle.
Most newer handsets run small Java and Flash applications. Try again.
Polarized solutions are far more technically challenging. While it works well for theaters who have money for an expensive silver screen and projectors, there are no practical ways of reproducing the effect with typical bright-room TV sets.
Also, polarization filters, even circular ones, always let some of the other light bleed through, which could impede contrast and sharpness.
Stereoscopic images accurately depict the complete visual sensation from a fixed view.
Our eyes are 2D sensors, and stereoscopic vision allows for interpretation of depth, but they are not true 3D sensors.
Precisely.
For me the CEA have permanently discredited themselves with such comments. I'll never believe a word they have to say again.