Use it to transport the file from one place to another, since the portable device is portable?
Only two thoughts.
1) There are dozens and dozens of apps that will allow you to store files. Air Sharing is the one I use. There are MANY, and they all support a variety of ways to connect to your Mac, PC or Linux box. Plus there's DropBox and all the online ones with iPad native clients.
2) Seriously? A $500 to $900 iPad is the portable device that's really screaming to be used to transport files from one physical place to another? Maybe a $20 USB stick or a 50 cent DVD or a $1 BluRay or a free DropBox accounts might be an efficient way to go on this one.
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
More good news for purchasers of today's tablets. You're only one hardware generation away from something you might want one day.
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.
With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.
If I want to get a file off a computer with Internet access, it WILL happen.
Perhaps. But if your employee handbook forbids it, the vast majority of file sharing sites and email sites are locked down, your USB port is disabled, and you can't burn CDs or DVDs, your machine is locked down and can't join an unauthorized WiFi network, your Bluetooth is disabled, and there's an application firewall that proxies (and inspects) your SSL packets, a DLP engine scanning your outbound mail through company servers, and 20 other things that can be done... guess what, your IT security team has done their due diligence and taken reasonable precautions. Also, if you are caught moving data, there can be no reasonable claim made that you didn't realize you were violating company policy, and there is a measure of liability on you, at the very least, an actionable offense that will end employment, but with possible legal considerations as well.
I don't know why people assume security should be 100% effective (it can't be) or don't bother doing it at all. Somewhere in between that, hopefully much nearer to 100% effective than 0% effective is reality.
Even my long-dead HTC Tornado(Windows Mobile 5) did multi-tasking so that I can listen to my music while browsing the web. iPad fails utterly in that sense alone.
1) Windows Mobile 5 and browsing the web... really, you enjoyed that?
2) iPads can't play music in the background? EVERY iOS device can do that with the iPod app, and ALMOST every iOS device except the original ones can do that with the latest OS releases and ANY third party music app.
But yeah, Pocket IE on Windows Mobile 5 was really awesome...
Not once you add the price for the accessories you'll need for the iPad 2 (e.g. funky proprietary connector to HDMI, etc.) When you're done you're within spitting distance. The price difference between the devices reflects what the manufacturers have decided to include.
I have had iPad 1 and now have iPad 2 - I still have no HDMI connector. Only "accessories" I've ever bought were a case, and the camera connection kit. But all tablets need a case... if you feel a case is necessary. So I think I'm out $29 on that connection kit versus having a SD slot... which really doesn't help me to go Android anyway since I shoot DSLR and my Canon 7D has Compact Flash not SD.
But it seems probable that Motorola or Samsung could match Apple in entry level price and specs if they chose to. *Design* of course is a different matter altogether, but it's another intangible whose perceived value varies from user to user. If you said that Apple's competitors should pay more attention to design, I wouldn't disagree with you.
Considering they both have premium and cheap Android phones on the market, if that were true... why wouldn't they have a $300 or $400 tablet on the market if they could?
It's ample because whoever wrote the summary has to keep trying to pretend to themselves that it's competitive to justify the purchase of their little fashion accessory. My phone has 512MB RAM.
I'd consider 1GB to be "ample" for a lightweight device right about now. My netbook is currently using 530MB RAM with only Chrome open, and usage when I have Chrome, a text editor, media player, IM and email clients open tends to be around 700-800MB.
Yeah, because iOS, Mobile Safari, iPod, a third party IM app probably with 1 background process only or not running at all, and Mail.app plus their rinky-dinky notepad app has a very similar footprint to a full blown Linux or Windows install on a NetBook running desktop applications.
This isn't about subtleties of language. The original Greek is very clear, as are the many English translations commonly in use today. The original commenter just misquoted the Bible. And no, it wasn't written down for years. That's quite common, the Jewish people off the time had very well established oral teaching traditions. There's tons of room for debate, but this particular passage was quite clear. And regardless of your thoughts of Jesus, if you accept there was a person named Jesus and that he had many things to say, this is quite in line with his teachings.
Wow. So if I have an AT&T Pre Plus, I can run 2.X but not use apps that require 2.X. On Sprint you'll lose navigation and network updates. On Verizon I guess it works okay. Other than that, the instructions weren't TOO complicated (but still way above Joe Consumer), until I got to the part about enabling flash.
I'm not sure this is really "just as good" as a HP supported upgrade.
You don't have to guess, considering the well over 1,000 years it took for the early English translations to appear. I cannot get it to paste right, but just to humor you I did look up the original Koine Greek for the passage. That's also almost certainly not the language he spoke to the Samaritan woman (it was probably Hebrew), but it's the language John used to record the Gospel. I realize your comment was no doubt meant as humor, but in case others are reading this thinking that it totally debunks the quote offered previously.
I assume you have never read the whole bible because most of the remotely sympathetic Christians that I have known never have. It is impossible for a rational non psychopathic person to read and understand the whole bible and believe that is both true and a valid basis for a good and moral religion.
You can say "but they are not the real Christians" all you want. History shows different, they have been the real Christians far longer than the kind that you believe in has existed. You want to pick and choose the tiny nuggets of good out of the cesspool of filth and lies that is the bible, go ahead. Some people think I have done the same, they are wrong. I forged my morality on reason alone.
The bible is neither true nor a valid basis for a good and moral religion. Faith is the lock that holds fast the chains of ignorance that imprisons your mind. I am an atheist, I believe in no god, no heaven and no hell. I do not need to be a subservient plaything to a god either wicked or benign. I do not need to fear eternal punishment or desire eternal bliss. I am good for none of these reasons. I am good because it is right and just, because it matters, because I want the world to be a better place.
It's easy to talk to an atheist. It's comparably harder to talk to someone who layers on bitterness, anger, and false statements. Combining that with doing it via Slashdot comments makes it darn near impossible. For the record (again), yes, I have read the whole Bible. Not everyone believes it impossible for rational people to read and understand, and believe that it's both true and moral. The only thing we agree on, is that there are a bunch of lousy people, and many use the name of my religion to perpetuate their evil.
I am talking about what happened in the first few centuries of Christianity, some of it before the gospel was written.
The gospel is older than you think. Much of the books now present in the New Testament have been dated to the latter part of 1st century A.D., some of the later epistles being older than the Gospel, and possibly dating to 50-60 A.D. in some cases. Prior to that, Church doctrine was fairly well established, even early on, although much of it passed on in the Jewish tradition of oral teachings.
Like it or not, Christianity began as an apocalyptic death cult and to some degree continues to be one even now. The protestants are not immune to this.
I am not an outsider speaking from a perspective of ignorance. I was once a christian, a deacons son. Then I read the entire bible; every book, every verse, every word. Then I was able to recognize the dissonance in what I had been taught. I was taught hate and violence masqueraded as love and justice. The whole thing was a hypocrisy and farce. I have witnessed and experience first hand the vile darkness of "good christians". I have seen the dull side of an axe against my brothers head, I have felt a preachers fingers around my throat, I have seen my family broken and bleeding. I have seen worse than that. And I was raised to be the same. All in the name of your god.
I reject that, I reject it all. I am a good and moral person, not because I was raised as a christian, it is in spite of it. I stand defiant and proud against you and blaspheme. I don't care if you are not like that, I don't care if you think yourself a good person. Open your eyes to what is happening now (the KKK, Uganda, fundamentalists, etc), read your entire damned bible (genesis to revelations), study the history of your church. Wake up.
If you were taught something contrary to the Gospel, then you were taught incorrectly. I don't dispute that many, many people teach many, many horrible things... quite often in the name of Christianity. On a side note, why would you assume I haven't read every word of the Bible? I certainly did before becoming a Christian (not born one, but born again), and I have since then as well. And yes, I am VERY aware of the history of my church, thank you. I realize as a people we profess to be sinful and imperfect by nature, but I am also aware just how far many of us have fallen. You seem to have been surrounded with some terrible people. The Gospel still rings true, even if you were exposed to a false teaching by false Christians.
That there's garbage in the world is not a reason for me to lay down my system of beliefs. It's more the reason to strive to the ideals promoted by Christ, and hope to awaken lost souls, even those already claiming to be saved.
Furthermore, if you have been threatened with an axe, or had a preacher choke or threaten to choke you, that's really not quite the same Christianity I've been exposed to. In fact, it's not Christian at all. I'm terribly sorry if you were surrounded by violence and abuse in the name of our Lord, but that's not the way my religion operates, just the way people operate in the false name of my religion.
What on earth are you talking about? Read 1 Col 7, as an earlier poster mention. Or just about anything in Song of Songs. It's not even exclusively a Christian teaching, most of the rules governing sex are carried over from Judaism. And who is the "they" that didn't have the numbers to convert or kill the entire human race? My church came from the reformation, and saw it's founders martyred to prevent just such a thing as you are referring to.
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
Right, because it's that much of a black and white issue. Either release everything, or release nothing. What was done, was irresponsible. Is there not a difference between releasing SOME information, and dumping so much stuff that people are put in harms way? The NY Times Magazine did a long , including talks about things they refused to do, including some interesting tidbits, such as:
Prior to the current release, WikiLeaks was most famous for footage of US helicopters firing on a crowd in Baghdad in 2007. All for a release like that, until you hear this: "But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.”"
The Times also "Guided by reporters with extensive experience in the field, we redacted the names of ordinary citizens, local officials, activists, academics and others who had spoken to American soldiers or diplomats. We edited out any details that might reveal ongoing intelligence-gathering operations, military tactics or locations of material that could be used to fashion terrorist weapons."
That the Times ended up with a poor relationship with WikiLeaks, ultimately losing access to early release of data, after Assange was made that "we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets."
The article (fascinating, really) goes on to talk about the Times eventually being in touch with the government, and agreeing to withhold certain documents that were mentioning too many specific details of ongoing operations, and disagreeing and publishing others that they felt were not endangering any lives. But throughout it all, the Obama administration was apparently not trying to strong arm the Times, and the article specifically cites: "The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest."
So yeah, I think one soldier releasing hundreds of thousands of documents without any care to do so solely with a moral purpose, and taking care not to release things that are flat out dangerous, and giving them to a guy who just wanted to bulk publish EVERYTHING regardless of content is not only illegal, but also not morally defensible.
I doubt it. The docs were also being leaked to the New York Times, and they say their source was not a private. This looks like a frame job to me.
The docs were initially given to the Times by Julian Assange himself. Once that relationship went sour, the Guardian continued to share (initially quietly) the information with the Times. Citation. There was a much, much longer story in the Times itself on the entire relationship between WikiLeaks, the Times, the Guardian, and that paper from Spain, but I can't find it now. The before-linked WSJ article sums it up nicely, however.
Who authorized this story? Why wasn't I notified that there was going to be a pro-Android story on the front page?
Somebody get the Apple Nation on the line. We need some trolls here, STAT! Go! Go! Go! We're bleeding here, people!
Your +5 Funny is well deserved, but on the off chance someone is reading that without seeing the joke, thinking there's an actual pro-Android story, the story actually states:
1) The hardware is not cheap.
2) Getting the Atrix into the dock was a little tricky, as you have to align both the Mini HDMI and Micro USB ports on the Atrix to the connectors on the dock.
3) You enable Bluetooth and manage the pairing in the Settings app on the Atrix. I suggest you do so before you dock it, as the Atrix is hard to use once docked, given the odd angle at which it sits -- it's definitely the wrong position and height for using touch gestures.
4) Connecting the Bluetooth devices was not simple. The keyboard connected and paired easily, but it took a half-dozen attempts to get the mouse to do so.
5) Once you've made all the connections, the Atrix should appear on your screen in a few moments -- but it didn't always. I sometimes had to unplug and replug the HDMI cable, and occasionally undock and redock the Atrix itself.
6) The Atrix dock's screen -- which has one window that mirrors the Atrix's display and a second that runs Firefox -- stretched to the entire width of my flat-screen TV, distorting its width. That meant the mouse location didn't match the actual locations of onscreen elements.
7) Running the Atrix's native Android apps on the big screen proved disappointing. All you get is a blown-up version of the Atrix's screen in a window.
8) Beyond running Firefox and blown-up versions of your Android apps, as well as playing media from your Atrix smartphone, there's little else you can do with the docked Atrix.
And on a side note: The cost of making your Atrix into a docked PC for such usage is actually not bad: At $400, the Lapdock is less than a netbook, and the $200 Multimedia Dock is even cheaper if you already have the other peripherals and don't need to travel.
WHAT?! I'm not saying there aren't $500 NetBooks, but there are tons of $250 netbooks that function easily as well as this.
Even the article summary is horrible: "The verdict: It's a good first half-step toward mobile devices being your primary computer." That's only true if the half-step is a half-step towards a hundred yard dash. I must have missed the part of this article where this seems in any way attractive as a device.
So was your point that we SHOULD all have every new car purchase immediately towed (not road safe until verified) to a third party mechanic for an inspection, or just that sometimes things happen?
When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works.
Just for your future reference, if you get behind the wheel of a car and plow into a person because you failed to verify the breaks worked properly, it will be You who the law holds responsible, and it will be you in jail under manslaughter charges.
That's possibly one of the most absurd replies to a car analogy I've ever seen. Which is striking, considering how many car analogies there are on Slashdot. Considering that dealers inspect cars at time of delivery, and that even those with absolutely no knowledge about cars tend to still take cars out on test drives, there really is no expectation for brake failure. I certainly never drive off the lot and right to a mechanic for a brake inspection with a new car.
Maybe he meant it in the sense of VP8 isn't ever going to cause a mobile phone device manufacturer to develop, test and deploy an update to their firmware to support a new codec
Google is the primary maintainer of the firmware for numerous smartphones with numerous SOCs. The market share of phone's running a Google operating system has already surpassed Apple and is headed for RIM. Google also owns the (permissively licensed) copyright and patent in VP8. So Nexus phones will get VP8 first just as they get other Android updates first, and then other phones will get it as they update Android. Have I already linked you this article about hardware acceleration of VP8?
Google will not successfully get the vast majority of non-Nexus phones upgraded. Just taking a peak at Motorola for example shows that the Charm, Cliq XT, Devour, Flipout, i1 and Milestone are all finished with upgrades in the US. The rest of the world didn't look too much better.
Sony hasn't made anyone feel good with the X10, now have they? And they had some other even more orphaned phone.
You honestly expect any significant percentage of already shipped non-Nexus phones to have WebM acceleration delivered via updates to end users within the next 1-2 years? Your article, was a bit light on details by the way. Google making information available doesn't exactly equate to "upgrades forthcoming".
Samsung hasn't exactly endeared themselves to the community either, with accusations of holding back updates to make newer phones seem more attractive.
So let's see, WebOS 2 not shipping to existing Pre/Pixi devices, Apple not supporting WebM, Android updates hit or miss depending on phone and carrier, no concrete news from Microsoft and their partners. You really sure WebM is going to take over mobile video streaming? Or even make a dent?
A lot of current smartphones and tablets use a system-on-chip similar to the OMAP on the BeagleBoard, with a programmable digital signal processor. With a programmable DSP, hardware acceleration is a matter of rewriting the transforms to use the intrinsics of the DSP. The infamous article 377, which analyzed VP8 and showed it to be in effect baseline AVC with the patented parts scraped off, demonstrated that a DSP-aware decoder for VP8 shouldn't be any harder than a DSP-aware decoder for AVC. So did you mean this in the sense of "VP8 cannot be accelerated on a mobile SOC", or "VP8 is not yet accelerated in the mobile firmware versions deployed as of Sunday, February 13, 2011"?
Maybe he meant it in the sense of VP8 isn't ever going to cause a mobile phone device manufacturer to develop, test and deploy an update to their firmware to support a new codec, when you can barely find a handful of phones that even get regular OS updates. Samsung, Motorola, Sony, etc do such a poor job of supporting newer Android releases from Google, I'm sure we'll find their existing phones will be updated REAL soon to support Google's favorite new video format.
Or did you think the same manufacturers who also make Win7 phones were going to do it?
Or did you think Apple was going to do it?
Nokia: Switching to Windows Phone 7. There goes that!
So I guess you mean HP or RIM? PS: I doubt that's going to happen either.
It's not that it "cannot be accelerated" as you state, nor is it that it "is not yet accelerated in the mobile firmware versions deployed as of...." as you stated. It's that "it ain't going to happen".
I have dealt with Dell support twice (bought two systems and had power supplies fail on both - yeah, typical Dell craftsmanship). But both were under warranty. I contacted Dell via their web site, had good exchanges with the rep (yes they ran me through script but they knew to cut through the BS when I told them I knew what I was doing), then within two days (in each case - the failures happened on different dates) a tech drove up to my lab and replaced a power supply. Different tech each time. Same fast, polite and efficient service. So, would I recommend buying a Dell. Hell no. At least if you want to avoid 100% failure rate on your PS. But would I recommend Dell customer service. At least locally, yes I would. Gotta give credit where it is due.
I'm not sure that your story, and conclusion that there is a 100% failure rate on Dell power supplies within the warranty period is much more than anecdotal. I might even have been in data centers that disagree with that conclusion. I might even be typing on a machine that defies that logic.
Yes, they can. But the margins are in the server market, and by that, the poster was referring to enterprise sales, not a home built frankenpc that has tons of hard drive space to hold all of your downloaded movies.
Who gives a toss about the Android Marketplace, as long as you have internet access available on the device, what are you losing out on? The chance to buy lots of unnecessary software?
This shows an incredible misunderstanding of how consumers operate smartphones these days. In my case, I'm not sure I'd enjoy my tablet without Angry Birds, and offline capable RSS reader, the Kindle app, my TripIt app, and countless others. Some of those (TripIt) can be accessed via browser... but certainly not in areas where I have no Internet. Some just can't be done without apps. I suspect there are non-Marketplace ways to get at some (if not all) of those apps, but really, why would I want to do that, when they've been collated and collected very convienantly in one place, vendor supported and all.
Or do you assume that your usage habits mirror everyone else's? Or did you assume that your usage habits SHOULD be everyone's?
Slashdot Mirror
Use it to transport the file from one place to another, since the portable device is portable?
Only two thoughts.
1) There are dozens and dozens of apps that will allow you to store files. Air Sharing is the one I use. There are MANY, and they all support a variety of ways to connect to your Mac, PC or Linux box. Plus there's DropBox and all the online ones with iPad native clients.
2) Seriously? A $500 to $900 iPad is the portable device that's really screaming to be used to transport files from one physical place to another? Maybe a $20 USB stick or a 50 cent DVD or a $1 BluRay or a free DropBox accounts might be an efficient way to go on this one.
Real time low latency audio is one example.
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
More good news for purchasers of today's tablets. You're only one hardware generation away from something you might want one day.
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.
With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.
Do people really care WHY something doesn't work?
If I want to get a file off a computer with Internet access, it WILL happen.
Perhaps. But if your employee handbook forbids it, the vast majority of file sharing sites and email sites are locked down, your USB port is disabled, and you can't burn CDs or DVDs, your machine is locked down and can't join an unauthorized WiFi network, your Bluetooth is disabled, and there's an application firewall that proxies (and inspects) your SSL packets, a DLP engine scanning your outbound mail through company servers, and 20 other things that can be done... guess what, your IT security team has done their due diligence and taken reasonable precautions. Also, if you are caught moving data, there can be no reasonable claim made that you didn't realize you were violating company policy, and there is a measure of liability on you, at the very least, an actionable offense that will end employment, but with possible legal considerations as well.
I don't know why people assume security should be 100% effective (it can't be) or don't bother doing it at all. Somewhere in between that, hopefully much nearer to 100% effective than 0% effective is reality.
Apple created the market for tablets.
Even my long-dead HTC Tornado(Windows Mobile 5) did multi-tasking so that I can listen to my music while browsing the web. iPad fails utterly in that sense alone.
1) Windows Mobile 5 and browsing the web... really, you enjoyed that?
2) iPads can't play music in the background? EVERY iOS device can do that with the iPod app, and ALMOST every iOS device except the original ones can do that with the latest OS releases and ANY third party music app.
But yeah, Pocket IE on Windows Mobile 5 was really awesome...
Not once you add the price for the accessories you'll need for the iPad 2 (e.g. funky proprietary connector to HDMI, etc.) When you're done you're within spitting distance. The price difference between the devices reflects what the manufacturers have decided to include.
I have had iPad 1 and now have iPad 2 - I still have no HDMI connector. Only "accessories" I've ever bought were a case, and the camera connection kit. But all tablets need a case... if you feel a case is necessary. So I think I'm out $29 on that connection kit versus having a SD slot... which really doesn't help me to go Android anyway since I shoot DSLR and my Canon 7D has Compact Flash not SD.
But it seems probable that Motorola or Samsung could match Apple in entry level price and specs if they chose to. *Design* of course is a different matter altogether, but it's another intangible whose perceived value varies from user to user. If you said that Apple's competitors should pay more attention to design, I wouldn't disagree with you.
Considering they both have premium and cheap Android phones on the market, if that were true... why wouldn't they have a $300 or $400 tablet on the market if they could?
It's ample because whoever wrote the summary has to keep trying to pretend to themselves that it's competitive to justify the purchase of their little fashion accessory. My phone has 512MB RAM.
I'd consider 1GB to be "ample" for a lightweight device right about now. My netbook is currently using 530MB RAM with only Chrome open, and usage when I have Chrome, a text editor, media player, IM and email clients open tends to be around 700-800MB.
Yeah, because iOS, Mobile Safari, iPod, a third party IM app probably with 1 background process only or not running at all, and Mail.app plus their rinky-dinky notepad app has a very similar footprint to a full blown Linux or Windows install on a NetBook running desktop applications.
This isn't about subtleties of language. The original Greek is very clear, as are the many English translations commonly in use today. The original commenter just misquoted the Bible. And no, it wasn't written down for years. That's quite common, the Jewish people off the time had very well established oral teaching traditions. There's tons of room for debate, but this particular passage was quite clear. And regardless of your thoughts of Jesus, if you accept there was a person named Jesus and that he had many things to say, this is quite in line with his teachings.
http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/WebOS_2_Upgrade
Have fun.
Wow. So if I have an AT&T Pre Plus, I can run 2.X but not use apps that require 2.X. On Sprint you'll lose navigation and network updates. On Verizon I guess it works okay. Other than that, the instructions weren't TOO complicated (but still way above Joe Consumer), until I got to the part about enabling flash.
I'm not sure this is really "just as good" as a HP supported upgrade.
You don't have to guess, considering the well over 1,000 years it took for the early English translations to appear. I cannot get it to paste right, but just to humor you I did look up the original Koine Greek for the passage. That's also almost certainly not the language he spoke to the Samaritan woman (it was probably Hebrew), but it's the language John used to record the Gospel. I realize your comment was no doubt meant as humor, but in case others are reading this thinking that it totally debunks the quote offered previously.
I assume you have never read the whole bible because most of the remotely sympathetic Christians that I have known never have. It is impossible for a rational non psychopathic person to read and understand the whole bible and believe that is both true and a valid basis for a good and moral religion.
You can say "but they are not the real Christians" all you want. History shows different, they have been the real Christians far longer than the kind that you believe in has existed. You want to pick and choose the tiny nuggets of good out of the cesspool of filth and lies that is the bible, go ahead. Some people think I have done the same, they are wrong. I forged my morality on reason alone.
The bible is neither true nor a valid basis for a good and moral religion. Faith is the lock that holds fast the chains of ignorance that imprisons your mind. I am an atheist, I believe in no god, no heaven and no hell. I do not need to be a subservient plaything to a god either wicked or benign. I do not need to fear eternal punishment or desire eternal bliss. I am good for none of these reasons. I am good because it is right and just, because it matters, because I want the world to be a better place.
It's easy to talk to an atheist. It's comparably harder to talk to someone who layers on bitterness, anger, and false statements. Combining that with doing it via Slashdot comments makes it darn near impossible. For the record (again), yes, I have read the whole Bible. Not everyone believes it impossible for rational people to read and understand, and believe that it's both true and moral. The only thing we agree on, is that there are a bunch of lousy people, and many use the name of my religion to perpetuate their evil.
I am talking about what happened in the first few centuries of Christianity, some of it before the gospel was written.
The gospel is older than you think. Much of the books now present in the New Testament have been dated to the latter part of 1st century A.D., some of the later epistles being older than the Gospel, and possibly dating to 50-60 A.D. in some cases. Prior to that, Church doctrine was fairly well established, even early on, although much of it passed on in the Jewish tradition of oral teachings.
Like it or not, Christianity began as an apocalyptic death cult and to some degree continues to be one even now. The protestants are not immune to this.
I am not an outsider speaking from a perspective of ignorance. I was once a christian, a deacons son. Then I read the entire bible; every book, every verse, every word. Then I was able to recognize the dissonance in what I had been taught. I was taught hate and violence masqueraded as love and justice. The whole thing was a hypocrisy and farce. I have witnessed and experience first hand the vile darkness of "good christians". I have seen the dull side of an axe against my brothers head, I have felt a preachers fingers around my throat, I have seen my family broken and bleeding. I have seen worse than that. And I was raised to be the same. All in the name of your god.
I reject that, I reject it all. I am a good and moral person, not because I was raised as a christian, it is in spite of it. I stand defiant and proud against you and blaspheme. I don't care if you are not like that, I don't care if you think yourself a good person. Open your eyes to what is happening now (the KKK, Uganda, fundamentalists, etc), read your entire damned bible (genesis to revelations), study the history of your church. Wake up.
If you were taught something contrary to the Gospel, then you were taught incorrectly. I don't dispute that many, many people teach many, many horrible things... quite often in the name of Christianity. On a side note, why would you assume I haven't read every word of the Bible? I certainly did before becoming a Christian (not born one, but born again), and I have since then as well. And yes, I am VERY aware of the history of my church, thank you. I realize as a people we profess to be sinful and imperfect by nature, but I am also aware just how far many of us have fallen. You seem to have been surrounded with some terrible people. The Gospel still rings true, even if you were exposed to a false teaching by false Christians.
That there's garbage in the world is not a reason for me to lay down my system of beliefs. It's more the reason to strive to the ideals promoted by Christ, and hope to awaken lost souls, even those already claiming to be saved.
Furthermore, if you have been threatened with an axe, or had a preacher choke or threaten to choke you, that's really not quite the same Christianity I've been exposed to. In fact, it's not Christian at all. I'm terribly sorry if you were surrounded by violence and abuse in the name of our Lord, but that's not the way my religion operates, just the way people operate in the false name of my religion.
What on earth are you talking about? Read 1 Col 7, as an earlier poster mention. Or just about anything in Song of Songs. It's not even exclusively a Christian teaching, most of the rules governing sex are carried over from Judaism. And who is the "they" that didn't have the numbers to convert or kill the entire human race? My church came from the reformation, and saw it's founders martyred to prevent just such a thing as you are referring to.
Sex is marriage. Remember Mary the prostitute? Jesus said 'You have many husbands'.
His actual words were "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you have now is not your husband." (John 4:18 NIV)
Many companies incorporate a US flag, or an avatar of it, in their logos
Define "most"
Why would he define most? He used MANY.
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
Right, because it's that much of a black and white issue. Either release everything, or release nothing. What was done, was irresponsible. Is there not a difference between releasing SOME information, and dumping so much stuff that people are put in harms way? The NY Times Magazine did a long , including talks about things they refused to do, including some interesting tidbits, such as:
The article (fascinating, really) goes on to talk about the Times eventually being in touch with the government, and agreeing to withhold certain documents that were mentioning too many specific details of ongoing operations, and disagreeing and publishing others that they felt were not endangering any lives. But throughout it all, the Obama administration was apparently not trying to strong arm the Times, and the article specifically cites: "The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest."
So yeah, I think one soldier releasing hundreds of thousands of documents without any care to do so solely with a moral purpose, and taking care not to release things that are flat out dangerous, and giving them to a guy who just wanted to bulk publish EVERYTHING regardless of content is not only illegal, but also not morally defensible.
>>>He did the crime,
I doubt it. The docs were also being leaked to the New York Times, and they say their source was not a private. This looks like a frame job to me.
The docs were initially given to the Times by Julian Assange himself. Once that relationship went sour, the Guardian continued to share (initially quietly) the information with the Times. Citation. There was a much, much longer story in the Times itself on the entire relationship between WikiLeaks, the Times, the Guardian, and that paper from Spain, but I can't find it now. The before-linked WSJ article sums it up nicely, however.
Who authorized this story? Why wasn't I notified that there was going to be a pro-Android story on the front page?
Somebody get the Apple Nation on the line. We need some trolls here, STAT! Go! Go! Go! We're bleeding here, people!
Your +5 Funny is well deserved, but on the off chance someone is reading that without seeing the joke, thinking there's an actual pro-Android story, the story actually states:
1) The hardware is not cheap.
2) Getting the Atrix into the dock was a little tricky, as you have to align both the Mini HDMI and Micro USB ports on the Atrix to the connectors on the dock.
3) You enable Bluetooth and manage the pairing in the Settings app on the Atrix. I suggest you do so before you dock it, as the Atrix is hard to use once docked, given the odd angle at which it sits -- it's definitely the wrong position and height for using touch gestures.
4) Connecting the Bluetooth devices was not simple. The keyboard connected and paired easily, but it took a half-dozen attempts to get the mouse to do so.
5) Once you've made all the connections, the Atrix should appear on your screen in a few moments -- but it didn't always. I sometimes had to unplug and replug the HDMI cable, and occasionally undock and redock the Atrix itself.
6) The Atrix dock's screen -- which has one window that mirrors the Atrix's display and a second that runs Firefox -- stretched to the entire width of my flat-screen TV, distorting its width. That meant the mouse location didn't match the actual locations of onscreen elements.
7) Running the Atrix's native Android apps on the big screen proved disappointing. All you get is a blown-up version of the Atrix's screen in a window.
8) Beyond running Firefox and blown-up versions of your Android apps, as well as playing media from your Atrix smartphone, there's little else you can do with the docked Atrix.
And on a side note: The cost of making your Atrix into a docked PC for such usage is actually not bad: At $400, the Lapdock is less than a netbook, and the $200 Multimedia Dock is even cheaper if you already have the other peripherals and don't need to travel.
WHAT?! I'm not saying there aren't $500 NetBooks, but there are tons of $250 netbooks that function easily as well as this.
Even the article summary is horrible: "The verdict: It's a good first half-step toward mobile devices being your primary computer." That's only true if the half-step is a half-step towards a hundred yard dash. I must have missed the part of this article where this seems in any way attractive as a device.
So was your point that we SHOULD all have every new car purchase immediately towed (not road safe until verified) to a third party mechanic for an inspection, or just that sometimes things happen?
When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works.
Just for your future reference, if you get behind the wheel of a car and plow into a person because you failed to verify the breaks worked properly, it will be You who the law holds responsible, and it will be you in jail under manslaughter charges.
That's possibly one of the most absurd replies to a car analogy I've ever seen. Which is striking, considering how many car analogies there are on Slashdot. Considering that dealers inspect cars at time of delivery, and that even those with absolutely no knowledge about cars tend to still take cars out on test drives, there really is no expectation for brake failure. I certainly never drive off the lot and right to a mechanic for a brake inspection with a new car.
Maybe he meant it in the sense of VP8 isn't ever going to cause a mobile phone device manufacturer to develop, test and deploy an update to their firmware to support a new codec
Google is the primary maintainer of the firmware for numerous smartphones with numerous SOCs. The market share of phone's running a Google operating system has already surpassed Apple and is headed for RIM. Google also owns the (permissively licensed) copyright and patent in VP8. So Nexus phones will get VP8 first just as they get other Android updates first, and then other phones will get it as they update Android. Have I already linked you this article about hardware acceleration of VP8?
Google will not successfully get the vast majority of non-Nexus phones upgraded. Just taking a peak at Motorola for example shows that the Charm, Cliq XT, Devour, Flipout, i1 and Milestone are all finished with upgrades in the US. The rest of the world didn't look too much better.
Sony hasn't made anyone feel good with the X10, now have they? And they had some other even more orphaned phone.
You honestly expect any significant percentage of already shipped non-Nexus phones to have WebM acceleration delivered via updates to end users within the next 1-2 years? Your article, was a bit light on details by the way. Google making information available doesn't exactly equate to "upgrades forthcoming".
Samsung hasn't exactly endeared themselves to the community either, with accusations of holding back updates to make newer phones seem more attractive.
So let's see, WebOS 2 not shipping to existing Pre/Pixi devices, Apple not supporting WebM, Android updates hit or miss depending on phone and carrier, no concrete news from Microsoft and their partners. You really sure WebM is going to take over mobile video streaming? Or even make a dent?
A lot of current smartphones and tablets use a system-on-chip similar to the OMAP on the BeagleBoard, with a programmable digital signal processor. With a programmable DSP, hardware acceleration is a matter of rewriting the transforms to use the intrinsics of the DSP. The infamous article 377, which analyzed VP8 and showed it to be in effect baseline AVC with the patented parts scraped off, demonstrated that a DSP-aware decoder for VP8 shouldn't be any harder than a DSP-aware decoder for AVC. So did you mean this in the sense of "VP8 cannot be accelerated on a mobile SOC", or "VP8 is not yet accelerated in the mobile firmware versions deployed as of Sunday, February 13, 2011"?
Maybe he meant it in the sense of VP8 isn't ever going to cause a mobile phone device manufacturer to develop, test and deploy an update to their firmware to support a new codec, when you can barely find a handful of phones that even get regular OS updates. Samsung, Motorola, Sony, etc do such a poor job of supporting newer Android releases from Google, I'm sure we'll find their existing phones will be updated REAL soon to support Google's favorite new video format.
Or did you think the same manufacturers who also make Win7 phones were going to do it?
Or did you think Apple was going to do it?
Nokia: Switching to Windows Phone 7. There goes that!
So I guess you mean HP or RIM? PS: I doubt that's going to happen either.
It's not that it "cannot be accelerated" as you state, nor is it that it "is not yet accelerated in the mobile firmware versions deployed as of...." as you stated. It's that "it ain't going to happen".
I have dealt with Dell support twice (bought two systems and had power supplies fail on both - yeah, typical Dell craftsmanship). But both were under warranty. I contacted Dell via their web site, had good exchanges with the rep (yes they ran me through script but they knew to cut through the BS when I told them I knew what I was doing), then within two days (in each case - the failures happened on different dates) a tech drove up to my lab and replaced a power supply. Different tech each time. Same fast, polite and efficient service. So, would I recommend buying a Dell. Hell no. At least if you want to avoid 100% failure rate on your PS. But would I recommend Dell customer service. At least locally, yes I would. Gotta give credit where it is due.
I'm not sure that your story, and conclusion that there is a 100% failure rate on Dell power supplies within the warranty period is much more than anecdotal. I might even have been in data centers that disagree with that conclusion. I might even be typing on a machine that defies that logic.
Servers can be many things.
Yes, they can. But the margins are in the server market, and by that, the poster was referring to enterprise sales, not a home built frankenpc that has tons of hard drive space to hold all of your downloaded movies.
Who gives a toss about the Android Marketplace, as long as you have internet access available on the device, what are you losing out on? The chance to buy lots of unnecessary software?
This shows an incredible misunderstanding of how consumers operate smartphones these days. In my case, I'm not sure I'd enjoy my tablet without Angry Birds, and offline capable RSS reader, the Kindle app, my TripIt app, and countless others. Some of those (TripIt) can be accessed via browser... but certainly not in areas where I have no Internet. Some just can't be done without apps. I suspect there are non-Marketplace ways to get at some (if not all) of those apps, but really, why would I want to do that, when they've been collated and collected very convienantly in one place, vendor supported and all.
Or do you assume that your usage habits mirror everyone else's? Or did you assume that your usage habits SHOULD be everyone's?