Overly narrow columns are just as annoying as overly wide columns. When I took the GREs in the past, they had one extremely narrow column on the far right of a flickering VGA screen, which made it virtually impossible to read. (Kind of like the deeply nested slashdot comments.) Of course, scrolling through something like that is a nightmare.
Perhaps even more obnoxious, is when the text is wider than the window and you have to use the horizontal scrollbar on each and every line. (Often the case when you need to resize screen-wide columns of microscopic text.) If all web pages were multiple long columns, that would introduce a similar effect with the vertical scrollbar.
Please, spare us; keep the columns normal, and the scrolling to a minimum.
I would not be surprised if those very firefighters had their own houses burn down after such an event. When people lose everything, they tend to do crazy things sometimes.
I also wonder if they would have watched it burn had there been people inside as well as animals...
Why not use Teredo? The whole purpose of it is to punch holes in NATs, and Windows 7 has it enabled by default if you don't have an IPv6 address.
While TCP would be a lot more work, a userland Teredo IPv6/UDP stack would be dead simple, and could even be integrated into the next generation p2p networks. Build them for IPv6, and no worries about the port forwarding nonsense.
There are far better technologies waiting to replace it, one being P-RAM. The best thing is, none of the newer tech is subject to Flash's crippling block-erase semantics, and so they are far more suitable for SSDs. No longer will SSDs require tremendously complex controllers and firmware in order to attain good performance, allowing new SSDs to be both cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
See here for a handful of AMD boards which do support the IOMMU present in the 890FX chipset. In addition, the ASUS M4A89TD Pro/USB3 supports ECC as well, which is nice. Sadly, outside of the server chipsets, the others in the 800 series do not support the IOMMU.
At the very least, the cost of a copyright should cover preserving the work until it can be released into the public domain. With the advent of DRM and stupidity like this, it is clear that some sort of escrow is needed for protected works.
That said, we should just do away with IP all together--the sooner, the better. Preferably before it is too late, when the emperor has nothing left but his clothes.
While I agree with your sentiment about the BSD license, that is completely beside the point.
This is about community, and open source is no different. If one monetizes the work of others, it is only natural to contribute something back. People and companies are free not to, but they certainly deserve shame for acting in such a manner, especially in a case like this.
The very existence of the GPL is a sad reflection upon our society. One shouldn't need the law to force people to act in a responsible and courteous manner. That also applies to the BSD license, though its demands are more reasonable.
Tabs on the left make sense, but unless you have a whole lot of them, tab images make better use of space. They are recognizable even when small, provide feedback, and make for a better click target. Also, for some sites, the text titles are just not useful for distinguishing tabs. (Actually, I would take out the text entirely, and only display it when one hovers over the tab bar--in the complete form next to, and over over the web page.)
Of course, a per window switch would be best, as there are definitely cases where you would want to use text tabs. (Lots of tabs from the same site, etc. )
Another nice presentation for image tabs would be an in-browser expose type interface. It could be implemented much like the Chrome downloads window; just another html page with the images/text, or in your own format entirely.
A nice advertisement for what not to buy, thanks Lexmark.
Anyway, for those looking for alternatives, Brother doesn't chip their cartridges, and the ink is not criminally expensive. Anyone know of other brands?
Another option is to buy a continuous ink system; often these include compatible chips so you can bypass the manufacturer. Though, finding good CIS and quality inks may be somewhat troublesome. Any suggestions here?
Just about every iteration of SIMD from Intel and AMD has been utterly worthless. (Not to mention NEON on the ARM.) Altivec was an example of SIMD done right, and AVX finally incorporates some of the better features of it.
This is exactly what should be done. Since Unix time does not include leap seconds, it is discontinuous--either skipping a second, or repeating the same one twice. Almost all software built on top of it simply wants a monotonically increasing clock, with no regard for the date. It is annoying to have to check for a leap second every second and in every application that needs this functionality. TAI is simply more appropriate for internal timekeeping.
Like leap years, leap seconds should only concerned when the time is needed in date form--after all, both of their goals are to keep our calendar and time of day in sync with solar time.
"Owning" a language is preposterous
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The purpose of a language is communication, and what Oracle is doing here is no different than censorship. The Java language by itself is completely worthless--its value is entirely derived from the people who express their ideas through it. Why should Oracle have free rein to control their work?
Targeting Dalvik (which is not a JVM) on an Anrdoid phone is no different than compiling Java with GCJ. If people want to run their code on a different platform, why should Oracle have any right to stop them?
The reality is that they don't. In the end, this is about the abuse of software patents, and you can't support Oracle here without supporting software patents. However you feel about Google, it isn't right to be cheering for a patent troll.
How do you run an ISP without oversubscribing? If you provide 20Mbit DSL to 10,000 customers, does that mean you need 200 Gbit connections to all of your peers? Or just the anticipated peak traffic (100th percentile? 99th?)? Further, if you aren't oversubscribed, then, by definition, none of your links will ever become congested. With everything being served non-blocking, at line rates, what would net neutrality even mean?
What I meant by "resold fairly with no oversubscription" only applies to the last mile natural monopoly where managed services requiring some form of QoS would be desirable and possible. As you point out, it wouldn't be practical elsewhere, and aggregate traffic would be treated as it is today.
The idea is that, for the last mile, the providers resell bandwidth to ISPs in terms of a minimum guaranteed rate. Above that, excess capacity will be subject to a fair queuing mechanism, so that it is utilized if available. With a minimum guaranteed rate, ISPs can provide QoS for voice or video for their own services. The important point about the QoS here, is that it only applies amongst a single customers packets according to an explicit agreement between them and the ISP for a managed service. (i.e., go ahead and guarantee X amount of my bandwidth for voice, or Y for video, or both.)
Of course, that sum of guaranteed rate services purchased from the ISP can't exceed the minimum guaranteed chunk that the ISP purchased from the provider.) Customers wanting faster Internet connections buy more guaranteed rate Internet service. Not only does all purchase of guaranteed rate service (managed or otherwise) directly drive investment in the network, it directly translates to faster Internet speeds. This is so, as the excess from all of the guaranteed services is shared fairly for Internet use. (i.e., when people are not on the phone, or not watching video; all together a considerable amount of excess capacity.)
Where the last mile is a collision based shared medium, this is a bit sticky with protocols that are not self-clocking, since the upstream queueing can't be managed. Unfortunately, there isn't an ideal solution which would allow you to make optimal use of the excess shared upstream capacity, and still maintain QoS. However, this fundamental problem exists today, and even the best efforts at traffic discrimination do not solve it.
Managed services are a good idea, if they are run on top of a neutral network. As long as that physical network is developed by an unbiased entity and resold fairly with no oversubscription, ISPs should be free to carve out as much bandwidth as they can pay for. As demand increases, regardless of content, investment in additional capacity will follow.
The problem with the existing situation is that as long as the ISPs own the underlying physical network, the "manages services" aren't running on top of the Internet, but rather the Internet is transformed into a "managed service". There is no incentive whatsoever for the ISPs to invest in additional capacity beyond what they require for their own services, so investment in the Internet is dead, and its value for future innovation is lost.
I can't believe that the iPad is being compared to the forefront of search engine technology. What happens under the covers at Google may be invisible to you, but it is built on mountain of innovation. Comparison to a simple gaget is off the scale in terms of absurdity.
The pervasive wireless networking you are suggesting is an attractive goal, but the fiber to the neighborhood wireless is not scalable in the longer term. In order to continue to scale bandwidth, UWB wireless will need to be very high-density, low-power, and short range.
At some point, you will need the full fiber rollout anyway, so it is best to do it right in the first place. Even in the unlikely event that a full spectrum reallocation is achievable, there is no way that it will be cheaper, and would involve massive transition costs as well.
If there is a true fork/spork of the OpenSolaris, it may actually provide a better opportunity for community growth. Under Sun's management, the community never had the chance to thrive, since the vast part of control and development remained internal to Sun. If the community now has the opportunity to participate on equal footing, as with *BSD/Linux/etc., the project should have no trouble attracting people and companies.
That, and someone really needs to revamp the build process to make development more fun and less painful. Compared to FreeBSD for example, it is a nightmare...
Physics is not merely an evolutionary process; occasionally, the models are simply wrong, and must be replaced. For example, consider epicycles. For the purpose of calculation, they were adequate, if expensive. However, a simpler and better theory was found, and they were replaced entirely. Unfortunately, history has shown us that most people will bitterly defend the accepted theory, rather than consider possible alternatives.
As Feynman once said, "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'." Anyone with common sense would consider the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics to be nonsense. Useful nonsense perhaps, but certainly not a suitable description of the world that just needs some refinement.
Yes, Oracle owns it; they bought it. You may justify it however you want, but it doesn't make it right. What Oracle is doing is dishonest; it is akin to replacing the manufacturer's label with your own.
I don't stamp my name on someone else's product even after I purchase it, and nor do most other companies after acquisitions where they continue to sell products which are clearly not of their own creation. If the company brand has recognition, it is usually kept, and if not, the changeover typically takes place with new product lines. This is clearly not appropriate for an established OS with decades of development.
Oracle is fooling no one, just making themselves look like asses.
Shh! Don't tell Oracle that the uname command returns SunOS, or all hell will break loose.
The obsession with removing the Sun name from everything is petty in the extreme, to say nothing of tacking Oracle on where inappropriate, ie. Oracle Solaris. It as if Larry were a kid who felt the need to stamp his name on all of his possessions.
There was also a discovery of a superconducting phase formed at the surface of an N-type diamond substrate six years ago. Since then, Johan Prins has managed to get one paper published in a semiconductor journal, but this work has been almost completely ignored by the scientific community. More disturbingly, to my knowledge, is that there has been no effort to duplicate this astonishing result, nor a single challenge of the experimental method or physics contained within the paper.
The observed behavior is clearly at odds with the presently accepted superconducting theory, and should be welcomed by any open-minded scientist, or at the very least refuted. The accepted theory not only doesn't fit the data for Type-II superconductors, it is useless in practice, and offers no real insight into the physical phenomenon.
Since then, he has postulated a new theory of superconductivity, and a new interpretation* of quantum mechanics, both of which look very reasonable from what I have seen. What is more, his theory accurately models both types of superconductors with the same physics, and is useful enough to engineer new superconductors. If the theory does fit the existing data more accurately, this certainly deserves further investigation.
Though I haven't been able to track down his book, there are chapters of his current and upcoming books here. They at least give insight into his ideas. My crude understanding follows, and I look forward to the completed book.
The fundamental idea, is that the the wave equation is not a probability distribution of a point particle, but a harmonic wave which represents the mass distribution of the particle, the complex part of which is actually another dimension. There are no particles, only waves, and all are subject to appropriate boundary conditions. The extra dimension also provides a pair of entangled "particles" a mechanism for action at a distance--they are in reality a single wave. Photons are waves without mass, and may entangle with an electron, imparting energy in the process. An interesting point, is that in Kaluza-Klein theory, Einstein's field equations and Maxwell's equations fall out of general relativity, simply by assuming an extra dimension.
Anyway, as applied to his superconducting discovery, the electrons actually entangle into a single electron wave, and form what he calls an array of orbitals. It is a purely electronic Bose-Einstein condensate, which is stable at room temperature, and where charge moves not by some convoluted electron-pair and phonon interaction, but by a quantum effect, in what is otherwise essentially an insulator. This same array is asserted to form within metals, or within the ceramic superconductors between layers, where there are sufficient donor atoms. All that is required is for the right density of orbitals to form and entangle, and that charge carriers be anchored somewhere, so that they can not undergo acceleration and collisions. (Which is why the best conductors do not superconduct.)
* the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is unsatisfying to say the least. The math is useful, but who really believes that wave-particle duality and the statistical interpretation are not a mere mathematical construct, but the foundation of reality? Never once did I believe that, nor did Einstein or Schrödinger, and it is disturbing that people would so easily accept it as fact.
How many of them have bare metal antennas on the surface of the phone? No matter what weasel words Steve chooses, there is no excuse for this defect.
So what if other phones require a "death grip" to affect signal strength? After all, all phones are subject to the laws of physics; if you block the signal, there is nothing the phone can do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Overly narrow columns are just as annoying as overly wide columns. When I took the GREs in the past, they had one extremely narrow column on the far right of a flickering VGA screen, which made it virtually impossible to read. (Kind of like the deeply nested slashdot comments.) Of course, scrolling through something like that is a nightmare.
Perhaps even more obnoxious, is when the text is wider than the window and you have to use the horizontal scrollbar on each and every line. (Often the case when you need to resize screen-wide columns of microscopic text.) If all web pages were multiple long columns, that would introduce a similar effect with the vertical scrollbar.
Please, spare us; keep the columns normal, and the scrolling to a minimum.
I would not be surprised if those very firefighters had their own houses burn down after such an event. When people lose everything, they tend to do crazy things sometimes.
I also wonder if they would have watched it burn had there been people inside as well as animals...
Why not use Teredo? The whole purpose of it is to punch holes in NATs, and Windows 7 has it enabled by default if you don't have an IPv6 address.
While TCP would be a lot more work, a userland Teredo IPv6/UDP stack would be dead simple, and could even be integrated into the next generation p2p networks. Build them for IPv6, and no worries about the port forwarding nonsense.
There are far better technologies waiting to replace it, one being P-RAM. The best thing is, none of the newer tech is subject to Flash's crippling block-erase semantics, and so they are far more suitable for SSDs. No longer will SSDs require tremendously complex controllers and firmware in order to attain good performance, allowing new SSDs to be both cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
See here for a handful of AMD boards which do support the IOMMU present in the 890FX chipset. In addition, the ASUS M4A89TD Pro/USB3 supports ECC as well, which is nice. Sadly, outside of the server chipsets, the others in the 800 series do not support the IOMMU.
At the very least, the cost of a copyright should cover preserving the work until it can be released into the public domain. With the advent of DRM and stupidity like this, it is clear that some sort of escrow is needed for protected works.
That said, we should just do away with IP all together--the sooner, the better. Preferably before it is too late, when the emperor has nothing left but his clothes.
While I agree with your sentiment about the BSD license, that is completely beside the point.
This is about community, and open source is no different. If one monetizes the work of others, it is only natural to contribute something back. People and companies are free not to, but they certainly deserve shame for acting in such a manner, especially in a case like this.
The very existence of the GPL is a sad reflection upon our society. One shouldn't need the law to force people to act in a responsible and courteous manner. That also applies to the BSD license, though its demands are more reasonable.
Tabs on the left make sense, but unless you have a whole lot of them, tab images make better use of space. They are recognizable even when small, provide feedback, and make for a better click target. Also, for some sites, the text titles are just not useful for distinguishing tabs. (Actually, I would take out the text entirely, and only display it when one hovers over the tab bar--in the complete form next to, and over over the web page.)
Of course, a per window switch would be best, as there are definitely cases where you would want to use text tabs. (Lots of tabs from the same site, etc. )
Another nice presentation for image tabs would be an in-browser expose type interface. It could be implemented much like the Chrome downloads window; just another html page with the images/text, or in your own format entirely.
There are 54 matches in /usr/share/dict, though facebook isn't one of them.
$ grep .book$ /usr/share/dict/words | xargs echo
bankbook blankbook bluebook boobook cabook casebook cashbook chapbook checkbook classbook cookbook copybook daybook doombook dopebook guidebook handbook handybook herdbook hornbook hymnbook jestbook landbook lawbook logbook matchbook needlebook notebook outbook overbook passbook playbook pocketbook pollbook promptbook rebook roadbook schoolbook scorebook scrapbook shopbook sketchbook songbook spaebook storybook studbook stylebook talebook textbook tithebook waybook wordbook workbook yearbook
A nice advertisement for what not to buy, thanks Lexmark.
Anyway, for those looking for alternatives, Brother doesn't chip their cartridges, and the ink is not criminally expensive. Anyone know of other brands?
Another option is to buy a continuous ink system; often these include compatible chips so you can bypass the manufacturer. Though, finding good CIS and quality inks may be somewhat troublesome. Any suggestions here?
Just about every iteration of SIMD from Intel and AMD has been utterly worthless. (Not to mention NEON on the ARM.) Altivec was an example of SIMD done right, and AVX finally incorporates some of the better features of it.
This is exactly what should be done. Since Unix time does not include leap seconds, it is discontinuous--either skipping a second, or repeating the same one twice. Almost all software built on top of it simply wants a monotonically increasing clock, with no regard for the date. It is annoying to have to check for a leap second every second and in every application that needs this functionality. TAI is simply more appropriate for internal timekeeping.
Like leap years, leap seconds should only concerned when the time is needed in date form--after all, both of their goals are to keep our calendar and time of day in sync with solar time.
The purpose of a language is communication, and what Oracle is doing here is no different than censorship. The Java language by itself is completely worthless--its value is entirely derived from the people who express their ideas through it. Why should Oracle have free rein to control their work?
Targeting Dalvik (which is not a JVM) on an Anrdoid phone is no different than compiling Java with GCJ. If people want to run their code on a different platform, why should Oracle have any right to stop them?
The reality is that they don't. In the end, this is about the abuse of software patents, and you can't support Oracle here without supporting software patents. However you feel about Google, it isn't right to be cheering for a patent troll.
How do you run an ISP without oversubscribing? If you provide 20Mbit DSL to 10,000 customers, does that mean you need 200 Gbit connections to all of your peers? Or just the anticipated peak traffic (100th percentile? 99th?)? Further, if you aren't oversubscribed, then, by definition, none of your links will ever become congested. With everything being served non-blocking, at line rates, what would net neutrality even mean?
What I meant by "resold fairly with no oversubscription" only applies to the last mile natural monopoly where managed services requiring some form of QoS would be desirable and possible. As you point out, it wouldn't be practical elsewhere, and aggregate traffic would be treated as it is today.
The idea is that, for the last mile, the providers resell bandwidth to ISPs in terms of a minimum guaranteed rate. Above that, excess capacity will be subject to a fair queuing mechanism, so that it is utilized if available. With a minimum guaranteed rate, ISPs can provide QoS for voice or video for their own services. The important point about the QoS here, is that it only applies amongst a single customers packets according to an explicit agreement between them and the ISP for a managed service. (i.e., go ahead and guarantee X amount of my bandwidth for voice, or Y for video, or both.)
Of course, that sum of guaranteed rate services purchased from the ISP can't exceed the minimum guaranteed chunk that the ISP purchased from the provider.) Customers wanting faster Internet connections buy more guaranteed rate Internet service. Not only does all purchase of guaranteed rate service (managed or otherwise) directly drive investment in the network, it directly translates to faster Internet speeds. This is so, as the excess from all of the guaranteed services is shared fairly for Internet use. (i.e., when people are not on the phone, or not watching video; all together a considerable amount of excess capacity.)
Where the last mile is a collision based shared medium, this is a bit sticky with protocols that are not self-clocking, since the upstream queueing can't be managed. Unfortunately, there isn't an ideal solution which would allow you to make optimal use of the excess shared upstream capacity, and still maintain QoS. However, this fundamental problem exists today, and even the best efforts at traffic discrimination do not solve it.
Managed services are a good idea, if they are run on top of a neutral network. As long as that physical network is developed by an unbiased entity and resold fairly with no oversubscription, ISPs should be free to carve out as much bandwidth as they can pay for. As demand increases, regardless of content, investment in additional capacity will follow.
The problem with the existing situation is that as long as the ISPs own the underlying physical network, the "manages services" aren't running on top of the Internet, but rather the Internet is transformed into a "managed service". There is no incentive whatsoever for the ISPs to invest in additional capacity beyond what they require for their own services, so investment in the Internet is dead, and its value for future innovation is lost.
Tell that to the thousands of people who together pledged over $200,000 to Diaspora on Kickstarter.
I can't believe that the iPad is being compared to the forefront of search engine technology. What happens under the covers at Google may be invisible to you, but it is built on mountain of innovation. Comparison to a simple gaget is off the scale in terms of absurdity.
The pervasive wireless networking you are suggesting is an attractive goal, but the fiber to the neighborhood wireless is not scalable in the longer term. In order to continue to scale bandwidth, UWB wireless will need to be very high-density, low-power, and short range.
At some point, you will need the full fiber rollout anyway, so it is best to do it right in the first place. Even in the unlikely event that a full spectrum reallocation is achievable, there is no way that it will be cheaper, and would involve massive transition costs as well.
If there is a true fork/spork of the OpenSolaris, it may actually provide a better opportunity for community growth. Under Sun's management, the community never had the chance to thrive, since the vast part of control and development remained internal to Sun. If the community now has the opportunity to participate on equal footing, as with *BSD/Linux/etc., the project should have no trouble attracting people and companies.
That, and someone really needs to revamp the build process to make development more fun and less painful. Compared to FreeBSD for example, it is a nightmare...
Physics is not merely an evolutionary process; occasionally, the models are simply wrong, and must be replaced. For example, consider epicycles. For the purpose of calculation, they were adequate, if expensive. However, a simpler and better theory was found, and they were replaced entirely. Unfortunately, history has shown us that most people will bitterly defend the accepted theory, rather than consider possible alternatives.
As Feynman once said, "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'." Anyone with common sense would consider the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics to be nonsense. Useful nonsense perhaps, but certainly not a suitable description of the world that just needs some refinement.
Yes, Oracle owns it; they bought it. You may justify it however you want, but it doesn't make it right. What Oracle is doing is dishonest; it is akin to replacing the manufacturer's label with your own.
I don't stamp my name on someone else's product even after I purchase it, and nor do most other companies after acquisitions where they continue to sell products which are clearly not of their own creation. If the company brand has recognition, it is usually kept, and if not, the changeover typically takes place with new product lines. This is clearly not appropriate for an established OS with decades of development.
Oracle is fooling no one, just making themselves look like asses.
Shh! Don't tell Oracle that the uname command returns SunOS, or all hell will break loose.
The obsession with removing the Sun name from everything is petty in the extreme, to say nothing of tacking Oracle on where inappropriate, ie. Oracle Solaris. It as if Larry were a kid who felt the need to stamp his name on all of his possessions.
Or DisplayPort, which provides:
17.28 Gbit/s of video bandwidth, enough for supporting 4 simultaneous 1080p60 displays or 2560 × 1600 × 30 bit @120 Hz
There was also a discovery of a superconducting phase formed at the surface of an N-type diamond substrate six years ago. Since then, Johan Prins has managed to get one paper published in a semiconductor journal, but this work has been almost completely ignored by the scientific community. More disturbingly, to my knowledge, is that there has been no effort to duplicate this astonishing result, nor a single challenge of the experimental method or physics contained within the paper.
The observed behavior is clearly at odds with the presently accepted superconducting theory, and should be welcomed by any open-minded scientist, or at the very least refuted. The accepted theory not only doesn't fit the data for Type-II superconductors, it is useless in practice, and offers no real insight into the physical phenomenon.
Since then, he has postulated a new theory of superconductivity, and a new interpretation* of quantum mechanics, both of which look very reasonable from what I have seen. What is more, his theory accurately models both types of superconductors with the same physics, and is useful enough to engineer new superconductors. If the theory does fit the existing data more accurately, this certainly deserves further investigation.
Though I haven't been able to track down his book, there are chapters of his current and upcoming books here. They at least give insight into his ideas. My crude understanding follows, and I look forward to the completed book.
The fundamental idea, is that the the wave equation is not a probability distribution of a point particle, but a harmonic wave which represents the mass distribution of the particle, the complex part of which is actually another dimension. There are no particles, only waves, and all are subject to appropriate boundary conditions. The extra dimension also provides a pair of entangled "particles" a mechanism for action at a distance--they are in reality a single wave. Photons are waves without mass, and may entangle with an electron, imparting energy in the process. An interesting point, is that in Kaluza-Klein theory, Einstein's field equations and Maxwell's equations fall out of general relativity, simply by assuming an extra dimension.
Anyway, as applied to his superconducting discovery, the electrons actually entangle into a single electron wave, and form what he calls an array of orbitals. It is a purely electronic Bose-Einstein condensate, which is stable at room temperature, and where charge moves not by some convoluted electron-pair and phonon interaction, but by a quantum effect, in what is otherwise essentially an insulator. This same array is asserted to form within metals, or within the ceramic superconductors between layers, where there are sufficient donor atoms. All that is required is for the right density of orbitals to form and entangle, and that charge carriers be anchored somewhere, so that they can not undergo acceleration and collisions. (Which is why the best conductors do not superconduct.)
* the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is unsatisfying to say the least. The math is useful, but who really believes that wave-particle duality and the statistical interpretation are not a mere mathematical construct, but the foundation of reality? Never once did I believe that, nor did Einstein or Schrödinger, and it is disturbing that people would so easily accept it as fact.
How many of them have bare metal antennas on the surface of the phone? No matter what weasel words Steve chooses, there is no excuse for this defect.
So what if other phones require a "death grip" to affect signal strength? After all, all phones are subject to the laws of physics; if you block the signal, there is nothing the phone can do about it.