~ 5" diagonal, in a 16:9 aspect ratio means the visible display area will be about 2.45" (62.5mm) wide x 4.36" (110.7mm) high. Add a 1/4" (6.3mm) border/bezel on the left and right sides and you have a phone at least 2.95" (75mm) wide. That's just too big for comfort for most people. Add a speaker on one end of the display, and some buttons on the other end, and it's going to be at least 5" (127mm) high, which is also pushing the limits for convenience.
And as others mentioned, 440ppi is well beyond the angular resolution of the human eye, even at 12 inches (30cm), and most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches. At a typical viewing distance of 15"-21" (37.5cm-52.5cm), they're way beyond visibility, making the extra resolution useless.
As for not having to down-convert 1080 content to 720 (or similar), it does save, but since the conversion is usually done on the device sending the data to the phone, not on the phone itself, the higher resolution simply means larger files, more bandwidth used, and more battery power and GPU power needed to decode and display 1080 content.
As a technical achievement, I appreciate it, but as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display.
Facebook would be quite within their rights to put these on iTunes or Amazon.
No, they wouldn't. You should try reading the actual FaceBook ToS
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Blame the design of the tax laws, and the city officials who are willing to give huge tax breaks to major businesses. We see this type of thing all the time in the building of major sports facilities. It's welfare for billionaires.
Size matters, and it costs. The mini is comparatively expensive because it has to use notebook components to fit that form factor. It also has the lowest idle power of any mainstream computer, so it's lower cost to operate.
When you look at notebooks, size, weight, battery life, display quality and resolution, and durability all matter. Where are the non-Apple notebooks that are competitive with the MacBook or MBP in these factors. There are several, from HP, Dell, Sony, Asus, etc., and they're all in the same price range as Apple's offerings.
If you don't care about size, or weight, or battery life, or display quality, or durability, there are plenty of cheaper options, but don't try to claim they're comparable. They may suit your needs just as well, maybe even better, but that's not the same thing as being comparable hardware.
Then, there is the difference in included software. Again, that may or not matter to you, but it's still a notable difference that you haven't accounted for.
At 7500+ LY, we'll have a good view, but we don't need to worry about it going SN. Now, if it collapses into a black hole that happens to point a gamma ray jet directly at us, we might have something to worry about.
Yes. If they just follow one simple rule, all these special laws are completely unnecessary. If the police or govt want to track you, search your property, see your activity from phone, bank, credit card, etc. transactions, they need to get a warrant. Following someone doesn't require a warrant if they're following your movement in public access spaces.
Here's the simple rule: If the info isn't available to the public and isn't info you explicitly gave to the government, then a warrant should be required. No exceptions.
Having worked with X.25, it's nothing to be proud of. Takes too much configuration to get a connection established. Hundreds of parameters, many of those are very esoteric.
You can't have someone patent and then never bring it to market. That would surely kill innovation and technological advancement.
Indeed, that is exactly the opposite of the purpose of patents. The sole reason for the existence of patents is to promote disclosure so that all may benefit from it. In exchange for such disclosure (rather than maintain it as a "trade secret"), the inventor is granted a "limited time" exclusive right called a patent. Patenting something, then never bringing it to market (and disallowing others from doing so) is contrary to the purpose of patents, and should be grounds for invalidating the patent.
I believe we should have a few patent terms depending upon the type of licensing terms. The details may vary a bit, but something like:
For hard goods inventions, If you offer the patent under published FRAND terms, you get the current 20 years. If you offer it for license, but under negotiated terms AND have at least 2 licensees producing products using it, you get 10 (perhaps 15) years. If you have fewer than 2 licensees producing products (e.g. you don't offer it for license, or the licenses are too expensive, etc.), you get 5 years (perhaps 10). Obviously, that's still a bit of an obstacle for items with long safety testing and regulatory clearance procedures (such as pharmaceuticals), perhaps would get ~5-10 years from date it cleared those procedures.
Software patents must be offered under published FRAND terms. You get 5-10 years.
Basically, the more accessible you make the patent, the longer the term. Keep it to yourself, and the term is very short.
Some comments about pharmaceuticals: It should not be possible to get a patent on specific enantiomers. One of the ways pharmaceutical manufacturers "game the system" is to patent a racemic mixture, then when that patent is about to expire, the patent the more effective of the enantiomers, getting another 20 years out of the same drug. Sometimes isolating the enantiomers produces a more effective medication with fewer side effects, in which case, a short term (5yrs or less) improvement patent might be appropriate, but definitely not another full patent term. Separating enantiomers can be tricky, so the process of producing or separating them might be separately patentable in some cases. That might need to be extended to other stereoisomers. We want to promote innovation, while making it very difficult to "game the system"
It isn't reasonable for all users to have to put up with crippled hardware simply because some users don't follow safe computing practices and infect their machines.
$5/mo for unlimited texting? Not from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile. It's a $20/mo add-on from VZ, AT&T and Sprint, or a $10/mo higher plan from T-Mobile.
...remember that a TV channel has about enough bandwidth for 45 mbps, one way, and to spread that across 100 customers for a cell (or worse) means that no-one is going to see 500 kbps, or less than 60kB/s.
Unless everyone is using the network 100% of the time, it doesn't work like that. The nature of demand based networks allows for significant over-subscription while still delivering decent performance. Peak times may slow when you actually have many simultaneously active users. What you need to manage is that you have enough capacity to unsure that you maintain adequate performance during 95%-99% of peak demand periods, with much better performance during lower demand periods.
Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret. Just because they hold licenses (for which they paid billions of dollars) to spectrum they're not using doesn't mean they're inhibiting competition or limiting availability, they're just "planning for the future".
Slashdot Mirror
~ 5" diagonal, in a 16:9 aspect ratio means the visible display area will be about 2.45" (62.5mm) wide x 4.36" (110.7mm) high. Add a 1/4" (6.3mm) border/bezel on the left and right sides and you have a phone at least 2.95" (75mm) wide. That's just too big for comfort for most people. Add a speaker on one end of the display, and some buttons on the other end, and it's going to be at least 5" (127mm) high, which is also pushing the limits for convenience.
And as others mentioned, 440ppi is well beyond the angular resolution of the human eye, even at 12 inches (30cm), and most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches. At a typical viewing distance of 15"-21" (37.5cm-52.5cm), they're way beyond visibility, making the extra resolution useless.
As for not having to down-convert 1080 content to 720 (or similar), it does save, but since the conversion is usually done on the device sending the data to the phone, not on the phone itself, the higher resolution simply means larger files, more bandwidth used, and more battery power and GPU power needed to decode and display 1080 content.
As a technical achievement, I appreciate it, but as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display.
The BB isn't good at 'Apps,' it's good at being a smartphone.
So, just what is a smartphone without apps? Sounds like a feature phone to me.
for signs of natural intelligence.
$1.1B net profit on $4.4B is 25% net margin, not 37%. It's not even 37% markup, it's ~33.3% (due to rounding, the range could be 30.8%-35.9%).
Facebook would be quite within their rights to put these on iTunes or Amazon.
No, they wouldn't. You should try reading the actual FaceBook ToS
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Blame the design of the tax laws, and the city officials who are willing to give huge tax breaks to major businesses. We see this type of thing all the time in the building of major sports facilities. It's welfare for billionaires.
Reminds me of the old SNL skits on the muck jumpers.
Size matters, and it costs. The mini is comparatively expensive because it has to use notebook components to fit that form factor. It also has the lowest idle power of any mainstream computer, so it's lower cost to operate.
When you look at notebooks, size, weight, battery life, display quality and resolution, and durability all matter. Where are the non-Apple notebooks that are competitive with the MacBook or MBP in these factors. There are several, from HP, Dell, Sony, Asus, etc., and they're all in the same price range as Apple's offerings.
If you don't care about size, or weight, or battery life, or display quality, or durability, there are plenty of cheaper options, but don't try to claim they're comparable. They may suit your needs just as well, maybe even better, but that's not the same thing as being comparable hardware.
Then, there is the difference in included software. Again, that may or not matter to you, but it's still a notable difference that you haven't accounted for.
At 7500+ LY, we'll have a good view, but we don't need to worry about it going SN. Now, if it collapses into a black hole that happens to point a gamma ray jet directly at us, we might have something to worry about.
How about this one. Arrested for being assaulted by a police officer.
Yes. If they just follow one simple rule, all these special laws are completely unnecessary. If the police or govt want to track you, search your property, see your activity from phone, bank, credit card, etc. transactions, they need to get a warrant. Following someone doesn't require a warrant if they're following your movement in public access spaces.
Here's the simple rule:
If the info isn't available to the public and isn't info you explicitly gave to the government, then a warrant should be required. No exceptions.
... survey says, "get a life", you surely have more important things to address.
Why are your senators always so mad?
Because this means less money for them to spend.
Having worked with X.25, it's nothing to be proud of. Takes too much configuration to get a connection established. Hundreds of parameters, many of those are very esoteric.
Are they real tin, or are you using aluminium foil?
You can't have someone patent and then never bring it to market. That would surely kill innovation and technological advancement.
Indeed, that is exactly the opposite of the purpose of patents. The sole reason for the existence of patents is to promote disclosure so that all may benefit from it. In exchange for such disclosure (rather than maintain it as a "trade secret"), the inventor is granted a "limited time" exclusive right called a patent. Patenting something, then never bringing it to market (and disallowing others from doing so) is contrary to the purpose of patents, and should be grounds for invalidating the patent.
I believe we should have a few patent terms depending upon the type of licensing terms. The details may vary a bit, but something like:
For hard goods inventions, If you offer the patent under published FRAND terms, you get the current 20 years. If you offer it for license, but under negotiated terms AND have at least 2 licensees producing products using it, you get 10 (perhaps 15) years. If you have fewer than 2 licensees producing products (e.g. you don't offer it for license, or the licenses are too expensive, etc.), you get 5 years (perhaps 10). Obviously, that's still a bit of an obstacle for items with long safety testing and regulatory clearance procedures (such as pharmaceuticals), perhaps would get ~5-10 years from date it cleared those procedures.
Software patents must be offered under published FRAND terms. You get 5-10 years.
Basically, the more accessible you make the patent, the longer the term. Keep it to yourself, and the term is very short.
Some comments about pharmaceuticals: It should not be possible to get a patent on specific enantiomers. One of the ways pharmaceutical manufacturers "game the system" is to patent a racemic mixture, then when that patent is about to expire, the patent the more effective of the enantiomers, getting another 20 years out of the same drug. Sometimes isolating the enantiomers produces a more effective medication with fewer side effects, in which case, a short term (5yrs or less) improvement patent might be appropriate, but definitely not another full patent term. Separating enantiomers can be tricky, so the process of producing or separating them might be separately patentable in some cases. That might need to be extended to other stereoisomers. We want to promote innovation, while making it very difficult to "game the system"
They did that in the '80s and '90s. You know, before 2000 and ME
It isn't reasonable for all users to have to put up with crippled hardware simply because some users don't follow safe computing practices and infect their machines.
Haven't you heard, cell phones and Wi-Fi are dangerous technologies. Allergies, cancer, other mystery ailments....
And broadband internet access, that's an extremely dangerous technology, just ask the MPAA, RIAA, or DHS.
$5/mo for unlimited texting? Not from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile. It's a $20/mo add-on from VZ, AT&T and Sprint, or a $10/mo higher plan from T-Mobile.
So, now that 2 ACs have demonstrated you're incorrect, maybe people with mod points will take notice.
And apparently, neither did you. I owned several, liked them all.
And if A is small relative to 1G, you won't notice it.
Mostly accurate, but...
...remember that a TV channel has about enough bandwidth for 45 mbps, one way, and to spread that across 100 customers for a cell (or worse) means that no-one is going to see 500 kbps, or less than 60kB/s.
Unless everyone is using the network 100% of the time, it doesn't work like that. The nature of demand based networks allows for significant over-subscription while still delivering decent performance. Peak times may slow when you actually have many simultaneously active users. What you need to manage is that you have enough capacity to unsure that you maintain adequate performance during 95%-99% of peak demand periods, with much better performance during lower demand periods.
Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret. Just because they hold licenses (for which they paid billions of dollars) to spectrum they're not using doesn't mean they're inhibiting competition or limiting availability, they're just "planning for the future".