Actually, they don't have better contrast, or color depth, or gamut. What they do have is greater color saturation, sharper edges, and often higher brightness. They're also notorious for greater delta-E (color accuracy). The "sharper edges" isn't a major advantage. What most grabs people's attention about them is the higher brightness and greater saturation. It's like the difference between Kodak and Fuji film, Kodak was more realistic and "natural", but many people preferred the over-saturated colors of Fuji film. Higher brightness is an attention getter, but it can be an advantage or a disadvantage.
I also hate finger prints on my screen, and glossy screens make those more obvious.
However, after spending some time on a MBP with a glossy screen, I think I could tolerate it, but I definitely prefer an AR or matte screen. Glossy screens and dark/black backgrounds are not a good combination, but if you use bright backgrounds, they're not as bad. The only bad scenario for a matte screen is very bright ambient (e.g. sunlight) directly hitting the screen. If you can turn so the light must reflect off a non-mirrored surface, the matte screen will be great. True AR coatings are superior to frosted "matte" surfaces. They're somewhat more expensive, but they're the best option overall.
Touch screens may complicate things for Pixel Qi, their screens have always relied on AR coatings. Touch screens need a capacitive (better) or resistive layer over the screen, and they need an oliophobic coating to resist finger prints. How will those affect the Pixel Qi screens?
Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me. I HATE glossy screens. Sure, they're sharp, but the reflections are annoying. In side-by-side comparisons at an Apple Store with glossy and non-glare screens, I found I can set the brightness lower on the non-glare screen, the glossy has to be brighter to overcome the reflections. So, that makes the non-glare not only visually preferable, but lower power in practice.
And, as someone with sensitive eyes, I don't want a screen at 500nits. 300+ is handy in bright sunlight, but indoors, my screen is usually around 150nits daytime, 60-80 nits nighttime. And with a good AR coating, you don't need extreme brightness even in sunlight.
So, while I have yet to see a Pixel Qi screen in person, I am very much looking forward to seeing their technology.
Headline says "safer", not "more secure". Safer != more secure. A Windows 95 machine that is not connected to the internet is safer than a Linux web server, but it's certainly not more secure.
BTW, most Android devices have Flash. If Flash isn't current (and even if it it), it's likely your device can be rooted by a website. I haven't heard about targeted attacks on Flash for Android, but Flash for Android has most of the same vulnerabilities as Flash on the desktop.
1. It requires Java. Java is not installed by default on Macs for the past year. The user has to take deliberate action to install it.
2. Even when Java is installed, it may not automatically run. For example, I have Java, but applets won't run unless I click to enable them for that page.
So, no, it doesn't just infect your computer without you doing anything. Having said that, yes, many Mac users were infected by doing nothing more than visiting an infected page, because they were running an older Mac OS X machine that did install Java by default, and they did not enable "click-to-play" or similar features in their browser.
Tough to say whether Apple of Oracle should get the blame for this one. Apple stopped supporting Java over a year ago, and Oracle is supposed to be releasing Java updates for the Mac now. Neither one took any action to fix the installed base despite knowing that this bug was fixed in Java several months ago.
First, the point is that this email isn't a "smoking gun". Not by a long stretch.
The patent claims have narrowed significantly, with only 2 of the original 7 patents remaining, and one of those is on shaky ground. Most of the remaining claims are about copyright, not patent. So while there are still patents involved, it's largely about copyright at this point.
See Groklaw if you need to familiarize yourself with other facts of the case.
Google would like to work with Sun to conceive of and agree to a license that enables Google to release to the Open Source community, under a license of it's own choosing, it's internally developed CLDC based JVM. Google would like to achieve this goal with Sun's blessing and cooperation.
Google does not foresee the necessity to license or redistribute any software from Sun.
Google desires to be able to call the resulting work Java.
Under that last point, they would definitely need a license from Sun, as "Java" was a registered trademark from Sun. MS and Sun had already been through that battle. If you want to call it Java, you needed permission from Sun. That's very different from claiming you need a license to make a Java compatible language. No smoking gun here.
Agreed. While the games aren't as complex/expensive to develop, Apple's App Store is a great example of this. People are making hundreds of thousands, millions, and occasionally tens of millions off games selling for $0.99 to $4.99. When the potential market is 25M+ machines, there is the potential to sell many millions of copies, if the price is below the "take a chance" impulse buy threshold.
Indeed, the App Store (and corresponding Android markets) may completely alter the way mass market software is priced and sold.
You mean there are German bands other than The Scorpions, Kraftwerk, Ramstein, Nina, and Tangerine Dream? (I deliberately exclude David Hasselhoff, no one likes him except the Germans anyway)
On a more serious note. Google/YouTube is unlikely to negotiate with people attempting extortion. Germany, get ready to kiss YouTube goodbye.
I never said he shouldn't have disclosed publicly, I said he exposed too much information. There was no need to expose full account information, card number, and pin. He only needed to disclose enough to demonstrate that he did in fact possess the information, therefore, the vulnerability was real, and that the banks were ignoring it.
Full disclosure doesn't mean disclosing everyone's information thus making it easier for the crooks. You can do full disclosure in a more responsible fashion. He did not.
I've had good success with my clients and their developers limiting the data they keep by focusing on their potential legal liability should the data leak (internal or external) and/or be misused. The less data you have, and the less sensitive that data, the lower the cost of any data leak.
As Mr Miyagi said "Best defense, no be there."
And while storage is cheap, there is a cost to maintaining data, and that's not insignificant. Keep only what you need, or it's probable that you'll need. Throw everything else away.
When dealing with governments, or corrupt individuals/companies, those arguments may not work as well.
That's exactly the point of this new article, it confirms the theory by accounting reducing the variance to below the "noise" level. Scientifically and statistically speaking, it's a solid confirmation.
Correct, and yet, this loss of speed has cost it about 250k mi in it's first 34 years. On a percentage basis, it's irrelevant, but over time it adds up. Here's an older article on the anomaly
The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct....
The drift showed that the Pioneers were being accelerated toward the Sun (or, rather, decelerated in their movement away from the Sun) by a tiny but inexplicable amount. The level of drift is equal to a gravitational effect 10 billion times weaker than the pull of Earth.
I have seen nothing in the agreement that limits the data gathering to flights to / from the USA
And that is the one reason I see to object to this. Sharing passenger data on passengers flying to/from the US makes sense. They're just going to have to provide that info to customs when the passenger arrives anyway, getting the info ahead of time is a smart security move and is not an invasion of privacy.
However, if this provides info on passengers on flights that are not to/from the US, then it goes too far and we should object. You could make a case for providing info on previous international flights for the passengers who are on a flight to the US. For instance, someone flies from Afghanistan to London, then to US, knowing they originated in Afghanistan might be important, even if the flights were a few months apart. But even in that instance, that info should not be provided until they book a flight into the US.
I know it's standard practice on slashdot to misunderstand what is written, so, from RTFA:
...providing affected institutions the details, including 1,000 captured bank accounts.
Proving it to the institutions, and embarrassing them by disclosing it publicly are not the same thing. His public disclosure included too much information.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the Doublemint twins?
Actually, they don't have better contrast, or color depth, or gamut. What they do have is greater color saturation, sharper edges, and often higher brightness. They're also notorious for greater delta-E (color accuracy). The "sharper edges" isn't a major advantage. What most grabs people's attention about them is the higher brightness and greater saturation. It's like the difference between Kodak and Fuji film, Kodak was more realistic and "natural", but many people preferred the over-saturated colors of Fuji film. Higher brightness is an attention getter, but it can be an advantage or a disadvantage.
I also hate finger prints on my screen, and glossy screens make those more obvious.
However, after spending some time on a MBP with a glossy screen, I think I could tolerate it, but I definitely prefer an AR or matte screen. Glossy screens and dark/black backgrounds are not a good combination, but if you use bright backgrounds, they're not as bad. The only bad scenario for a matte screen is very bright ambient (e.g. sunlight) directly hitting the screen. If you can turn so the light must reflect off a non-mirrored surface, the matte screen will be great. True AR coatings are superior to frosted "matte" surfaces. They're somewhat more expensive, but they're the best option overall.
Touch screens may complicate things for Pixel Qi, their screens have always relied on AR coatings. Touch screens need a capacitive (better) or resistive layer over the screen, and they need an oliophobic coating to resist finger prints. How will those affect the Pixel Qi screens?
Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me. I HATE glossy screens. Sure, they're sharp, but the reflections are annoying. In side-by-side comparisons at an Apple Store with glossy and non-glare screens, I found I can set the brightness lower on the non-glare screen, the glossy has to be brighter to overcome the reflections. So, that makes the non-glare not only visually preferable, but lower power in practice.
And, as someone with sensitive eyes, I don't want a screen at 500nits. 300+ is handy in bright sunlight, but indoors, my screen is usually around 150nits daytime, 60-80 nits nighttime. And with a good AR coating, you don't need extreme brightness even in sunlight.
So, while I have yet to see a Pixel Qi screen in person, I am very much looking forward to seeing their technology.
This is slashdot, self-correction won't prevent you from getting flamed and rated a troll.
But, that's ok, cause some of us appreciate it when people admit to making a mistake, even better that you caught it yourself.
Really, RTFS and look at the linked email, dated 2005.
You fail. The email is dated 2005. Way BEFORE Android was released, in fact, before it was even close to finalized.
Since when is the iOS more secure?
Headline says "safer", not "more secure". Safer != more secure. A Windows 95 machine that is not connected to the internet is safer than a Linux web server, but it's certainly not more secure.
BTW, most Android devices have Flash. If Flash isn't current (and even if it it), it's likely your device can be rooted by a website. I haven't heard about targeted attacks on Flash for Android, but Flash for Android has most of the same vulnerabilities as Flash on the desktop.
Wrong on several counts:
1. It requires Java. Java is not installed by default on Macs for the past year. The user has to take deliberate action to install it.
2. Even when Java is installed, it may not automatically run. For example, I have Java, but applets won't run unless I click to enable them for that page.
So, no, it doesn't just infect your computer without you doing anything. Having said that, yes, many Mac users were infected by doing nothing more than visiting an infected page, because they were running an older Mac OS X machine that did install Java by default, and they did not enable "click-to-play" or similar features in their browser.
Tough to say whether Apple of Oracle should get the blame for this one. Apple stopped supporting Java over a year ago, and Oracle is supposed to be releasing Java updates for the Mac now. Neither one took any action to fix the installed base despite knowing that this bug was fixed in Java several months ago.
First, the point is that this email isn't a "smoking gun". Not by a long stretch.
The patent claims have narrowed significantly, with only 2 of the original 7 patents remaining, and one of those is on shaky ground. Most of the remaining claims are about copyright, not patent. So while there are still patents involved, it's largely about copyright at this point.
See Groklaw if you need to familiarize yourself with other facts of the case.
Under that last point, they would definitely need a license from Sun, as "Java" was a registered trademark from Sun. MS and Sun had already been through that battle. If you want to call it Java, you needed permission from Sun. That's very different from claiming you need a license to make a Java compatible language. No smoking gun here.
"Is there someone else up there we can talk to?"
Agreed. While the games aren't as complex/expensive to develop, Apple's App Store is a great example of this. People are making hundreds of thousands, millions, and occasionally tens of millions off games selling for $0.99 to $4.99. When the potential market is 25M+ machines, there is the potential to sell many millions of copies, if the price is below the "take a chance" impulse buy threshold.
Indeed, the App Store (and corresponding Android markets) may completely alter the way mass market software is priced and sold.
Fraud isn't science, and I don't trust any study that suggests increasing it. I suggest a decrease in fraud.
640mi (in 3 min) should be enough for anyone.
So just slow it to Mach 19.7.
It must be Quantum Dark Matter, it's only there when you're not looking for it. Attempts to observe it alter it.
They are a republic. They're not an independent nation, but they are a sovereign state organized as a republic.
You're absolutely correct, they're not communists (well, very few are).
He should have said the "Social Democrat Republic of California".
They're not socialists either, but they do lean that direction, as long as it doesn't hurt the revenues of Hollywood or Silicon Valley.
You mean there are German bands other than The Scorpions, Kraftwerk, Ramstein, Nina, and Tangerine Dream? (I deliberately exclude David Hasselhoff, no one likes him except the Germans anyway)
On a more serious note. Google/YouTube is unlikely to negotiate with people attempting extortion. Germany, get ready to kiss YouTube goodbye.
Comprehension fail!
I never said he shouldn't have disclosed publicly, I said he exposed too much information. There was no need to expose full account information, card number, and pin. He only needed to disclose enough to demonstrate that he did in fact possess the information, therefore, the vulnerability was real, and that the banks were ignoring it.
Full disclosure doesn't mean disclosing everyone's information thus making it easier for the crooks. You can do full disclosure in a more responsible fashion. He did not.
I've had good success with my clients and their developers limiting the data they keep by focusing on their potential legal liability should the data leak (internal or external) and/or be misused. The less data you have, and the less sensitive that data, the lower the cost of any data leak.
As Mr Miyagi said "Best defense, no be there."
And while storage is cheap, there is a cost to maintaining data, and that's not insignificant. Keep only what you need, or it's probable that you'll need. Throw everything else away.
When dealing with governments, or corrupt individuals/companies, those arguments may not work as well.
That's exactly the point of this new article, it confirms the theory by accounting reducing the variance to below the "noise" level. Scientifically and statistically speaking, it's a solid confirmation.
Correct, and yet, this loss of speed has cost it about 250k mi in it's first 34 years. On a percentage basis, it's irrelevant, but over time it adds up. Here's an older article on the anomaly
The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct. ...
The drift showed that the Pioneers were being accelerated toward the Sun (or, rather, decelerated in their movement away from the Sun) by a tiny but inexplicable amount. The level of drift is equal to a gravitational effect 10 billion times weaker than the pull of Earth.
I have seen nothing in the agreement that limits the data gathering to flights to / from the USA
And that is the one reason I see to object to this. Sharing passenger data on passengers flying to/from the US makes sense. They're just going to have to provide that info to customs when the passenger arrives anyway, getting the info ahead of time is a smart security move and is not an invasion of privacy.
However, if this provides info on passengers on flights that are not to/from the US, then it goes too far and we should object. You could make a case for providing info on previous international flights for the passengers who are on a flight to the US. For instance, someone flies from Afghanistan to London, then to US, knowing they originated in Afghanistan might be important, even if the flights were a few months apart. But even in that instance, that info should not be provided until they book a flight into the US.
I know it's standard practice on slashdot to misunderstand what is written, so, from RTFA:
...providing affected institutions the details, including 1,000 captured bank accounts.
Proving it to the institutions, and embarrassing them by disclosing it publicly are not the same thing. His public disclosure included too much information.