I've always been told it depends on where the period belongs. That is to say if you're quoting an entire sentence (e.g. the end of the quote is the end of a sentence) the period goes inside to denote this, otherwise it goes outside. According to this source, placing the period inside the quote regardless of logic is an "American" thing; though I'm American and follow the logic provided there.
Literally every other source I bothered to look at (all American style guides) say the period (or comma) goes inside the quote unless there is a parenthetical citation, in which case it follows that. After a dozen or so sources, I gave up on trying to find one representing a country other than the US; if anyone can provide me one or more, that would be greatly appreciated.
Except that she's on my side re: the iPhone 7. Most iPhone users I know are, along with every single Android user I know. Mind you, I don't know all of them, but if my rather large (global and multi-industry, not just Silicon Valley tech people) circle is at all representative of the wider population, and I believe it is, the iPhone 7 isn't going to see the sales numbers previous models have seen; and if they don't backpedal a bit, the 7s won't either.
Right? I mean, the iPhone 6s Plus is a fine device (not my cup of tea, but my wife sure seems to like hers), why would Cook denigrate it by saying this new dreck is better?
As an Android developer, I can tell you you're wrong. When I install my app and deny it permissions, it doesn't get them. Period. As the app developer, I'm the one getting the logs.
The app in question was written to test just that.
Anyone developing a new bit of hardware as a side project or hobby. PIC and Arduino are hobbyist prototyping tools and I'd dare say that most of the userbase for both will be using their personal computer. These are rarely (relative to how often they're used by hobbyists) seen in the workplace.
And even for those who do, a dual boot is more than enough
Not for m.... wait, I'll let you finish... sorry.
unless they use them so much that they would be rebooting so often that it'd be worse than spending all their time on windows
Like an electronics hobbyist who might unwind every night (or even periodically throughout the day) working on their hardware project?
That's basically the entirety of the target market for these things. Yes it matters, and yes they care.
There's a "Post Anonymously" checkbox when you're logged in. Have you seriously not seen it before? It's right there next to "You are posting: as"... well, wait, no I'm sure you've never seen it, you've probably never logged in.
There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just highlight it with this reply so that others who might be able to step in and correct your understanding of the situation might take note and do so...
The iPhone 6 is about as bendable as "other phones on the market" if you define "other phones on the market" as "iPhone 6 Plus". Even then, it bent with 22% less force. Even if we increase the scope of our comparison to include additional iPhones (and still ignore every other manufacturer), the iPhone 5 takes 86% more force to bend than the iPhone 6.
Yes, it's significantly weaker than other phones on the market. Even when you limit "other phones" to just Apple's own offerings, against which it should compare most favorably.
When you open up the scope of the comparison to include all phones on the market at the time, the worst non-Apple performer was the LG G3, which matched the iPhone 5. Literally every other phone on the market at the time did better than that, with the larger-but-not-meaningfully-thicker Samsung Galaxy Note 5 holding up to more than twice as much force before bending.
The pen and paper experience of using a digitizer tablet is easily broken by processing latency on a loacl system, doingit remotely simply will not work. Networked games and remote gaming services use prediction algorithms to compensate for latency; if that was a viable solution for drawing, we'd already see it implemented.
Let me put it this way: if it ever happens, if Adobe ever does it, I'll eat these words. If it's actually successful and sees any meaningful adoption, I'll pay for a year of it for you.
If you've got a very low-latency connection, sure. And I do mean very, as to say that anything with higher latency than a single hop on a LAN is going to feel VERY slow to your typical Photoshop artist. Put a digitizer stylus in an artist's hand and have them try it on a computer that can't give them immediate feedback; they'll tell you it's unusable.
But, even ignoring that, the cost for storage? Yeah, no... Again, I'll pass.
And, to display it locally? You need to send all the layers to the browser and, BAM, there you have it, you're essentially sending the entire PSD. Plus, have you looked at Adobe's cloud storage pricing? CC for Teams is the cheapest option at $75/seat for up to 100GB storage per seat. I'll pass, thanks.
Indeed, it does. However, that the person I was replying to was considering T-Mobile and cited price, not coverage, as the reason for not making the switch, I don't think signal strength was the issue. Also, every phone T-Mobile currently offers supports wi-fi calling, so if, for example, you have crap coverage at home but it's good at work (or vise-versa if you're allowed to put your phone on the wi-fi where you work) you're still covered.
What MetroPCS lacks is partner roaming (which means it only works where T-Mo has native coverage), unlimited use in Canada and Mexico, and international roaming with no-charge data. If none of those features are useful to you, enjoy MetroPCS, just realize that your savings do come at a cost. Some of us actually travel and MetroPCS is not a viable option for us.
I had a similar experience with them 14 years ago. It's been much more pleasant this time around; they certainly treat me better than AT&T, who treats their customers much better than Verizon, who treats people marginally better than Sprint. They've really stepped up their customer service game; maybe 5-6 years ago they were at the bottom.
No, because Metro PCS doesn't include roaming in partner networks or in Canada and Mexico, like T-Mo does. The savings come from the vastly reduced coverage.
No, actually, it is the lack of available spectrum that throttles speeds. The tower can't transmit data it can't transmit, so to speak. The QoS merely determines for whom this happens.
When spectrum is available, nobody is throttled.
I feel like you actually understand this and simply failed to rely that understanding in your explanation; replying to clear it up for other readers.
That works for fixed-point networks, where you can predict that you'll need 10gbit at a given point because you've sold 100mbit connections to 100 users who all route through that point. It falls apart when your endpoints can be routed through one substation one minute and a different substation on the other side of town the next.
With fixed-point networks, you can say "I don't have capacity in downtown San Francisco, so I can't sell to you currently if you're there" but, with wireless, you can tell someone that and they can, instead, give you their friend's address, who lives just outside the city where you do have capacity, then go ahead and use it in the location where you just told them you couldn't sell due to lack of capacity.
As for adding capacity, there is only so much spectrum and towers can only handle a limited number of users and must transmit at certain levels in order to provide a usable signal, which means you can only pack them so densely before they start stepping on each other. Sure, you can string fiber after fiber to the towers, but when the tower can only handle 500 users (read: streams) and LTE (as currently licensed and deployed by all major carriers) tops out at 100mbps (4x4 MIMO, 25mbps per stream) it literally makes zero sense to provide more than 12.5gbps to a tower, as that will support every single device downloading at full speed. Upload speeds are half that.
And that's in a perfect world where every device has a clean signal, no noise or interference causing drop-outs or retransmissions, no other tower nearby using a part of that spectrum and stepping on things. In reality, we have those issues, the noise and interference, the other nearby towers stepping on our signal, and the true aggregate throughput of most towers, as a result, is around half of that.
When you add in that most devices sit idle most of the time, 1gbps to a tower should (and, in fact, proves to be) be more than sufficient, except in areas where large conferences are frequently held, where you may see some minor benefit to doubling the bandwidth at the tower, until all the conference attendees show up with their phones and iPads and LTE modems and the environment becomes so noisy nobody can talk to the tower anymore; then you only need a couple mbps at the tower, because that's all that's getting through the airwaves anyway.
TL;DR: Your post shows a severe lack of foresight and understanding of the topic at hand. You would do well to research the topic and consider the bigger picture before speaking next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Perfect, thanks. :)
I've always been told it depends on where the period belongs. That is to say if you're quoting an entire sentence (e.g. the end of the quote is the end of a sentence) the period goes inside to denote this, otherwise it goes outside. According to this source, placing the period inside the quote regardless of logic is an "American" thing; though I'm American and follow the logic provided there.
Literally every other source I bothered to look at (all American style guides) say the period (or comma) goes inside the quote unless there is a parenthetical citation, in which case it follows that. After a dozen or so sources, I gave up on trying to find one representing a country other than the US; if anyone can provide me one or more, that would be greatly appreciated.
Except that she's on my side re: the iPhone 7. Most iPhone users I know are, along with every single Android user I know. Mind you, I don't know all of them, but if my rather large (global and multi-industry, not just Silicon Valley tech people) circle is at all representative of the wider population, and I believe it is, the iPhone 7 isn't going to see the sales numbers previous models have seen; and if they don't backpedal a bit, the 7s won't either.
Right? I mean, the iPhone 6s Plus is a fine device (not my cup of tea, but my wife sure seems to like hers), why would Cook denigrate it by saying this new dreck is better?
As an Android developer, I can tell you you're wrong. When I install my app and deny it permissions, it doesn't get them. Period. As the app developer, I'm the one getting the logs.
The app in question was written to test just that.
Who cares?
Anyone developing a new bit of hardware as a side project or hobby. PIC and Arduino are hobbyist prototyping tools and I'd dare say that most of the userbase for both will be using their personal computer. These are rarely (relative to how often they're used by hobbyists) seen in the workplace.
And even for those who do, a dual boot is more than enough
Not for m.... wait, I'll let you finish... sorry.
unless they use them so much that they would be rebooting so often that it'd be worse than spending all their time on windows
Like an electronics hobbyist who might unwind every night (or even periodically throughout the day) working on their hardware project?
That's basically the entirety of the target market for these things. Yes it matters, and yes they care.
There's a "Post Anonymously" checkbox when you're logged in. Have you seriously not seen it before? It's right there next to "You are posting: as"... well, wait, no I'm sure you've never seen it, you've probably never logged in.
There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just highlight it with this reply so that others who might be able to step in and correct your understanding of the situation might take note and do so...
The iPhone 6 is about as bendable as "other phones on the market" if you define "other phones on the market" as "iPhone 6 Plus". Even then, it bent with 22% less force. Even if we increase the scope of our comparison to include additional iPhones (and still ignore every other manufacturer), the iPhone 5 takes 86% more force to bend than the iPhone 6.
Yes, it's significantly weaker than other phones on the market. Even when you limit "other phones" to just Apple's own offerings, against which it should compare most favorably.
When you open up the scope of the comparison to include all phones on the market at the time, the worst non-Apple performer was the LG G3, which matched the iPhone 5. Literally every other phone on the market at the time did better than that, with the larger-but-not-meaningfully-thicker Samsung Galaxy Note 5 holding up to more than twice as much force before bending.
The pen and paper experience of using a digitizer tablet is easily broken by processing latency on a loacl system, doingit remotely simply will not work. Networked games and remote gaming services use prediction algorithms to compensate for latency; if that was a viable solution for drawing, we'd already see it implemented.
Let me put it this way: if it ever happens, if Adobe ever does it, I'll eat these words. If it's actually successful and sees any meaningful adoption, I'll pay for a year of it for you.
And, yet again, the cost for storage? Nope.
If you've got a very low-latency connection, sure. And I do mean very, as to say that anything with higher latency than a single hop on a LAN is going to feel VERY slow to your typical Photoshop artist. Put a digitizer stylus in an artist's hand and have them try it on a computer that can't give them immediate feedback; they'll tell you it's unusable.
But, even ignoring that, the cost for storage? Yeah, no... Again, I'll pass.
And, to display it locally? You need to send all the layers to the browser and, BAM, there you have it, you're essentially sending the entire PSD. Plus, have you looked at Adobe's cloud storage pricing? CC for Teams is the cheapest option at $75/seat for up to 100GB storage per seat. I'll pass, thanks.
Indeed. You clarified that you understood what I had already implied you understood. ;)
Does "love" have any boundaries?
No, but apparently humor does...
Tinder is not available as far as I can tell.
What would be the point? Who wants to hook up with a Windows Phone user?
... and bandwidth... I often work on PSDs that are a couple GB in size, or more.
No, I understand that just fine but... Huh... Where does T-Mobile advertise speeds?
And I feel like your reply would've been unnecessary had you read the last line of my post.
Indeed, it does. However, that the person I was replying to was considering T-Mobile and cited price, not coverage, as the reason for not making the switch, I don't think signal strength was the issue. Also, every phone T-Mobile currently offers supports wi-fi calling, so if, for example, you have crap coverage at home but it's good at work (or vise-versa if you're allowed to put your phone on the wi-fi where you work) you're still covered.
What MetroPCS lacks is partner roaming (which means it only works where T-Mo has native coverage), unlimited use in Canada and Mexico, and international roaming with no-charge data. If none of those features are useful to you, enjoy MetroPCS, just realize that your savings do come at a cost. Some of us actually travel and MetroPCS is not a viable option for us.
I had a similar experience with them 14 years ago. It's been much more pleasant this time around; they certainly treat me better than AT&T, who treats their customers much better than Verizon, who treats people marginally better than Sprint. They've really stepped up their customer service game; maybe 5-6 years ago they were at the bottom.
No, because Metro PCS doesn't include roaming in partner networks or in Canada and Mexico, like T-Mo does. The savings come from the vastly reduced coverage.
New plan with unlimited on T-Mobile: $200
Current plan with limits on AT&T: $200
Who cares if all lines will benefit? If even one will, the price is is the same, it's a net win.
No, actually, it is the lack of available spectrum that throttles speeds. The tower can't transmit data it can't transmit, so to speak. The QoS merely determines for whom this happens.
When spectrum is available, nobody is throttled.
I feel like you actually understand this and simply failed to rely that understanding in your explanation; replying to clear it up for other readers.
That works for fixed-point networks, where you can predict that you'll need 10gbit at a given point because you've sold 100mbit connections to 100 users who all route through that point. It falls apart when your endpoints can be routed through one substation one minute and a different substation on the other side of town the next.
With fixed-point networks, you can say "I don't have capacity in downtown San Francisco, so I can't sell to you currently if you're there" but, with wireless, you can tell someone that and they can, instead, give you their friend's address, who lives just outside the city where you do have capacity, then go ahead and use it in the location where you just told them you couldn't sell due to lack of capacity.
As for adding capacity, there is only so much spectrum and towers can only handle a limited number of users and must transmit at certain levels in order to provide a usable signal, which means you can only pack them so densely before they start stepping on each other. Sure, you can string fiber after fiber to the towers, but when the tower can only handle 500 users (read: streams) and LTE (as currently licensed and deployed by all major carriers) tops out at 100mbps (4x4 MIMO, 25mbps per stream) it literally makes zero sense to provide more than 12.5gbps to a tower, as that will support every single device downloading at full speed. Upload speeds are half that.
And that's in a perfect world where every device has a clean signal, no noise or interference causing drop-outs or retransmissions, no other tower nearby using a part of that spectrum and stepping on things. In reality, we have those issues, the noise and interference, the other nearby towers stepping on our signal, and the true aggregate throughput of most towers, as a result, is around half of that.
When you add in that most devices sit idle most of the time, 1gbps to a tower should (and, in fact, proves to be) be more than sufficient, except in areas where large conferences are frequently held, where you may see some minor benefit to doubling the bandwidth at the tower, until all the conference attendees show up with their phones and iPads and LTE modems and the environment becomes so noisy nobody can talk to the tower anymore; then you only need a couple mbps at the tower, because that's all that's getting through the airwaves anyway.
TL;DR: Your post shows a severe lack of foresight and understanding of the topic at hand. You would do well to research the topic and consider the bigger picture before speaking next time.