I personally like the theory that GPS is killing our ability to read maps. Because, you know, we all had to take 4 years of map reading in grade school.
Ahhhh, nothing like trolling Apple fans. Come on, I called you guys a cult in my first post, then I called you a murderer. Do you think there are really people who think that way?
You have a 4 digit ID and you're seriously asking me that? Actual Apple fans (you have me mislabeled....) have historically, on this site, been extreme enough to earn themselves actual hate. You don't remember a few years ago seeing silly not-taken-seriously jokes about the Mac getting mod bombed to death?
No, it means I am trying to put pressure on the big fish, not the little fish.
No, it means you're putting pressure on Apple instead of putting pressure on Foxcon.
By making Apple look bad, I am helping the workers to negotiate.
You're encouraging Apple to do business somewhere else. That won't help the workers. Since it's about Apple and not about Foxcon, you're not doing a whole lot to get them to soften their policies.
By defending Apple as you do...
I am not defending Apple. Singling them out doesn't help the workers.
Sorry, but Foxconn's other clients aren't as newsworthy. Logitech and Dell aren't big enough names to warrant a mention. It is not a conspiracy against your cult. And if it were, "But other companies do business with Foxconn tooooooo!" is not an excuse, m'kay? Apple does business with a company that works its slaves until they die, end of story.
When you fixate on Apple and not on the other companies doing business with Foxconn it means you don't really care at all about the workers. "End of Story".
What Google has done is to 'comply' with Verizon's request to have tethering apps removed from the Android Market if this market is accessed by Android devices *on* the Verizon network.
This falls short of a ban as implied by the diction in the title.
This does not explain the > 500ms delay when trying to use the guide.
That's probably due to being 'keyframe' compression. The way that works is you start with frame 0, and that is the entire picture. The computer looks at frame 1, compares it to frame 0, and determines the difference. Frame 1 is now a partial frame that is overlaid on top of frame 0. Then frame 2 repeats the process, you end up with a partial frame which looks a lot like an old cel of animation missing its background, yadda yadda yadda. Then, when you reach a certain threshold (like 96 frames, maybe?) a whole image is put into the stream. Then, 97 is looking at 96 instead of frame 0.
So why does this cause a huge latency? Well, if you go by my example and want to get frame 95, you have to start at frame 0 and build up the image for EACH FRAME before you get to 95.
With broadcast TV this gets a little more complicated. You can't rewind the signal, it is just constantly blasting into the receiver. What is probably happening is the receiver is waiting for the next key-frame to come along. Maybe in your case the stream you're getting is compressed using a keyframe every 15 frames.
This again? Opera didn't invent tabs. Please stop spreading this myth
He said 'innovate', not invent. One of the things Opera had on FF for years was that the windows were tabbed... and the UI supported them properly. While FF's tabs were very basic, Opera's tabs had a lot well-implemented features for managing them.
That doesn't matter, though. The reason Opera people get uppity about who got what first is numerous people on Slashdot, while riding on a high of FireFox/Mozilla fandom and IE hate, made claims about how FireFox was 'inventing' these features. It gets a little old when you try out FireFox, coming from Opera, and find the UI can't do have the things the Opera UI can do.
I would never have imagined someone would take that.
Well, you gotta take into account that it's phrased a bit differently. It's not "you have to pay to receive calls", it's "you have to pay for the phone being on the air."
Lets see, when the iPad came out there was no other tablet on the market and years of marketing hype which created a pent up need.
Wow, this is the first time I've seen a non-Apple-fanboy claim that Apple invented the Tablet. But, no, there were plenty of tablets on the market. Nobody had managed to make one that was worthwhile to the masses until Apple came along. I'm not talking about the iPad, either. The iPod touch has been out for ages. That alone should have sparked somebody to come along and make an iPad'ish tablet. But.... nope, Apple had to be the one to do it.
The iPad came out and they sold a crap load of them. There is also the Apple fanboy factor "If it is Apple I must have it". Many, if not most, people who would buy a tablet now have iPads thereby deceasing overall demand for tablets.
The iPad has been out for a year, the iPod touch years before that, and the iPad 2 still hasn't filled demand. There has been plenty of time to develop a competitor and there are plenty of people ready to buy.
An Android pad with a real tablet OS comes out, is panned by the tech community and people wonder what it didn't sell as many as the iPad?
They're wondering why Apple has the magic touch. It's fun to theorize that there are 10's of millions of people just waiting to empty their wallets into Steve's piggy bank, but the reality is that it is possible to compete... but to do that it needs to be understood what the right ingredients are. Is it the App Store? Is it the flashy interface? Is it because they advertise straight-forward things you can do with it, and it actually works as simply as they showed? Google, Samsung, Motorola, they all need to understand this.
It's not a case of bad luck, they just plain blew it.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally like the theory that GPS is killing our ability to read maps. Because, you know, we all had to take 4 years of map reading in grade school.
I mean who puts servers using any operating system public facing to the internet without a firewall..
FTFY.
Am the only one running apache without a firewall ?
No, we're all running your machine, too!
Ahhhh, nothing like trolling Apple fans. Come on, I called you guys a cult in my first post, then I called you a murderer. Do you think there are really people who think that way?
You have a 4 digit ID and you're seriously asking me that? Actual Apple fans (you have me mislabeled....) have historically, on this site, been extreme enough to earn themselves actual hate. You don't remember a few years ago seeing silly not-taken-seriously jokes about the Mac getting mod bombed to death?
No, it means I am trying to put pressure on the big fish, not the little fish.
No, it means you're putting pressure on Apple instead of putting pressure on Foxcon.
By making Apple look bad, I am helping the workers to negotiate.
You're encouraging Apple to do business somewhere else. That won't help the workers. Since it's about Apple and not about Foxcon, you're not doing a whole lot to get them to soften their policies.
By defending Apple as you do...
I am not defending Apple. Singling them out doesn't help the workers.
You are little better than a murderer yourself.
I did not call you a murderer.
Sorry, but Foxconn's other clients aren't as newsworthy. Logitech and Dell aren't big enough names to warrant a mention. It is not a conspiracy against your cult. And if it were, "But other companies do business with Foxconn tooooooo!" is not an excuse, m'kay? Apple does business with a company that works its slaves until they die, end of story.
When you fixate on Apple and not on the other companies doing business with Foxconn it means you don't really care at all about the workers. "End of Story".
What Google has done is to 'comply' with Verizon's request to have tethering apps removed from the Android Market if this market is accessed by Android devices *on* the Verizon network.
This falls short of a ban as implied by the diction in the title.
Ah, damage control.
This does not explain the > 500ms delay when trying to use the guide.
That's probably due to being 'keyframe' compression. The way that works is you start with frame 0, and that is the entire picture. The computer looks at frame 1, compares it to frame 0, and determines the difference. Frame 1 is now a partial frame that is overlaid on top of frame 0. Then frame 2 repeats the process, you end up with a partial frame which looks a lot like an old cel of animation missing its background, yadda yadda yadda. Then, when you reach a certain threshold (like 96 frames, maybe?) a whole image is put into the stream. Then, 97 is looking at 96 instead of frame 0.
So why does this cause a huge latency? Well, if you go by my example and want to get frame 95, you have to start at frame 0 and build up the image for EACH FRAME before you get to 95.
With broadcast TV this gets a little more complicated. You can't rewind the signal, it is just constantly blasting into the receiver. What is probably happening is the receiver is waiting for the next key-frame to come along. Maybe in your case the stream you're getting is compressed using a keyframe every 15 frames.
If it did happen, how did we loose the technology to do it?
We didn't.
Why cant we do it again?
Money.
This again? Opera didn't invent tabs. Please stop spreading this myth
He said 'innovate', not invent. One of the things Opera had on FF for years was that the windows were tabbed... and the UI supported them properly. While FF's tabs were very basic, Opera's tabs had a lot well-implemented features for managing them.
That doesn't matter, though. The reason Opera people get uppity about who got what first is numerous people on Slashdot, while riding on a high of FireFox/Mozilla fandom and IE hate, made claims about how FireFox was 'inventing' these features. It gets a little old when you try out FireFox, coming from Opera, and find the UI can't do have the things the Opera UI can do.
We would have found out if he had surrendered.
rm -f /bin/laden
At the moment of penetration, wouldn't they cease to be virgins?
I just have this image in my head of Osama appearing in a misty room, surrounded by 72 Star Wars prequel fans.
So why, specifically, do you think it was a hoax?
It was a question,
Are you serious?
... but Osama's dead.
The only gap I like is pink, hairy, and smells like fish.
Let us know when you finally found out what it really smells like.
Doesn't that bring us back to the word 'disclaimer'?
What does that number "do"?
Well, for one thing, you could use it to defeat computers in the future.
In other words: Go through proper channels. Duh.
I'm sorry, adding some RAM is going ot tilt the IT Department?
Yes, opening the machine and messing with the internals will annoy IT.
I would never have imagined someone would take that.
Well, you gotta take into account that it's phrased a bit differently. It's not "you have to pay to receive calls", it's "you have to pay for the phone being on the air."
The perspective is different.
What'd you pay for each?
Lets see, when the iPad came out there was no other tablet on the market and years of marketing hype which created a pent up need.
Wow, this is the first time I've seen a non-Apple-fanboy claim that Apple invented the Tablet. But, no, there were plenty of tablets on the market. Nobody had managed to make one that was worthwhile to the masses until Apple came along. I'm not talking about the iPad, either. The iPod touch has been out for ages. That alone should have sparked somebody to come along and make an iPad'ish tablet. But.... nope, Apple had to be the one to do it.
The iPad came out and they sold a crap load of them. There is also the Apple fanboy factor "If it is Apple I must have it". Many, if not most, people who would buy a tablet now have iPads thereby deceasing overall demand for tablets.
The iPad has been out for a year, the iPod touch years before that, and the iPad 2 still hasn't filled demand. There has been plenty of time to develop a competitor and there are plenty of people ready to buy.
An Android pad with a real tablet OS comes out, is panned by the tech community and people wonder what it didn't sell as many as the iPad?
They're wondering why Apple has the magic touch. It's fun to theorize that there are 10's of millions of people just waiting to empty their wallets into Steve's piggy bank, but the reality is that it is possible to compete... but to do that it needs to be understood what the right ingredients are. Is it the App Store? Is it the flashy interface? Is it because they advertise straight-forward things you can do with it, and it actually works as simply as they showed? Google, Samsung, Motorola, they all need to understand this.
It's not a case of bad luck, they just plain blew it.