Smart phones are general purpose computers in your pocket.
No, they're not. They're way more like game consoles than PCs. Yes, even on Android.
Not implementing basic features because someone else also implements them doesn't make you innovative, it makes you idiotic.
I don't know when anybody has been called innovative because they didn't replicate a feature. Just adding a data port to a phone doesn't make you innovative. You're still following in the parade and hoping you can somehow edge a little past your competition. That's the trap Google is in right now and it'll continue to plague them until they develop their own vision of what a phone or a tablet should be like.
Android is a me-too product for exactly the reason you said it is not. Sorry.
I hope I'm not breaching protocol by asking, but would you be willing to share any numbers on how much you're spending on the cabs? Just curious how it compares to owning a car.
Take a good look at the area under the bottle in this image. Some of the water remains brown, yet parts of the two men's arms are the exact same color as the water.
I visited MSNBC one day and got to sit amongst some people gathering images for news stories to post on their site. They'd often pull up the image then find a few things to boost up the saturation on. For example, when I was there, there was a stoty about a forest fire. They got the photos of the scene and do things like highlight the fire and make it brighter. This wasn't to be disingenuous, it was to make it more readable to the audience. I think that's what happened in this photo. I think they just slathered on some boost in saturation, probably because the camera didn't quite capture the shade of red people were seeing. That can happen on overcast days.
I don't really see 'photoshopped' in the sense that I don't think that the river was really just brown and that they made it up.
Not necessarily. Good code can show what is being done, but it can't show different approaches which were rejected. Comments can explain why certain shortcuts are valid or not valid in a way which won't be obvious from the code.
My comments are usually an apology for not doing it the right way.
No, it's not. They could not maintain their success for so many generations of products if they didn't have a strong platform to build on. Face it, if image were really all there was to it, then many Android phones would be 'fashionable' just because s'not Apple. We stopped living in that world years ago when Android became a viable alternative to iOS.
Um, no. Apple is taking sides based on the PR it might get. They banned the 'shake the baby' app for exactly the same reason. They're not going to stop doing it, either, because 'image' is a big part of their marketing strategy.
Heck, these days, you can be running them all as VMs and fire them up as needed.
That still costs money. That's their profits slowly evaporating.
EA has been votes the worst company in the world by gamers several times. Again, you clearly aren't into gaming to have not seen this.
You're right, I am not a hardcore gamer. However, I do know that DRM from EA has already soured people. Take a look at what happened when the original copy restriction scheme for Spore was announced. The backlash caused them to scale it back.
They don't want the press, just like what's happening right now with Ubi. They do care about their costs, there's no getting around that.
On top of that, DRM eats away at their revenue for each year that they support their customers. For example, if I install Spore right now, EA has to have some server somewhere grant me access to it. They pay people to code that service, maintain the servers, and man the phones for the cases that go wrong or if I go through too many activations.
I really don't understand why they think this is a viable alternative especially when they cannot actually point to an empty bank vault where a bunch of money is missing.
I don't really understand why my post was modded down. What's so inflammatory about saying that DRM costs the publishers/developers money, too?
Finally somebody starts to get it. When you make it more convenient to pirate the game than to pay for it there's something badly wrong.
On top of that, DRM eats away at their revenue for each year that they support their customers. For example, if I install Spore right now, EA has to have some server somewhere grant me access to it. They pay people to code that service, maintain the servers, and man the phones for the cases that go wrong or if I go through too many activations.
I really don't understand why they think this is a viable alternative especially when they cannot actually point to an empty bank vault where a bunch of money is missing.
Slashdot Mirror
Smart phones are general purpose computers in your pocket.
No, they're not. They're way more like game consoles than PCs. Yes, even on Android.
Not implementing basic features because someone else also implements them doesn't make you innovative, it makes you idiotic.
I don't know when anybody has been called innovative because they didn't replicate a feature. Just adding a data port to a phone doesn't make you innovative. You're still following in the parade and hoping you can somehow edge a little past your competition. That's the trap Google is in right now and it'll continue to plague them until they develop their own vision of what a phone or a tablet should be like.
Android is a me-too product for exactly the reason you said it is not. Sorry.
Android is a me too phone?
Tell that the the android phones with physical keyboards, hdmi output, or sd card slots. These are things that the iPhone never did.
In other words: "Our product is like theirs only we added a couple of features."
That's the very definition of a me-too product.
There is no not 'faking' it if the camera isn't taking the photo the human eye is seeing.
Do you realize how much blue light you're getting from the sky that your eyes naturally deal with?
Understanding != sugarcoating.
A ton of money is made by the PC "security" industry surrounding Windows.
Why would Microsoft support an industry that they don't make money from that actually makes their product look bad?
What if the photo isn't coming out as people actually see it?
I hope I'm not breaching protocol by asking, but would you be willing to share any numbers on how much you're spending on the cabs? Just curious how it compares to owning a car.
Take a good look at the area under the bottle in this image. Some of the water remains brown, yet parts of the two men's arms are the exact same color as the water.
I visited MSNBC one day and got to sit amongst some people gathering images for news stories to post on their site. They'd often pull up the image then find a few things to boost up the saturation on. For example, when I was there, there was a stoty about a forest fire. They got the photos of the scene and do things like highlight the fire and make it brighter. This wasn't to be disingenuous, it was to make it more readable to the audience. I think that's what happened in this photo. I think they just slathered on some boost in saturation, probably because the camera didn't quite capture the shade of red people were seeing. That can happen on overcast days.
I don't really see 'photoshopped' in the sense that I don't think that the river was really just brown and that they made it up.
Not necessarily. Good code can show what is being done, but it can't show different approaches which were rejected. Comments can explain why certain shortcuts are valid or not valid in a way which won't be obvious from the code.
My comments are usually an apology for not doing it the right way.
What'd I do?
AT&T put the 3 gig limit on my unlimited plan AFTER I renewed a contract.
Bye bye AT&T.
Does that mean this only works via line-of-sight? Why use this over radio to talk to satellites?
American robots aren't much better.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, Captain.
Admiral.
..with signs that say: "The chemicals used in making these roads have been known to cause cancer."
Californians elected the shitheads who brought about this situation...
No, they elected people who turned out to be shitheads. What Californians failed to do was fire them.
If customers need to act responsibly, then they should know how the competition works as well. Objectivity is a virtue.
I didn't realize tens of millions of people bought Louis Vuitton bags.
No, it's not. They could not maintain their success for so many generations of products if they didn't have a strong platform to build on. Face it, if image were really all there was to it, then many Android phones would be 'fashionable' just because s'not Apple. We stopped living in that world years ago when Android became a viable alternative to iOS.
Is Apple taking sides in international conflicts?
Um, no. Apple is taking sides based on the PR it might get. They banned the 'shake the baby' app for exactly the same reason. They're not going to stop doing it, either, because 'image' is a big part of their marketing strategy.
Could you fool it with a photo?
Also, we do not even have the experience of building something that can stay 10 years in space without constant support from Earth...
True. But hasn't the biosphere project helped move us in the right direction to make this plausible?
Heck, these days, you can be running them all as VMs and fire them up as needed.
That still costs money. That's their profits slowly evaporating.
EA has been votes the worst company in the world by gamers several times. Again, you clearly aren't into gaming to have not seen this.
You're right, I am not a hardcore gamer. However, I do know that DRM from EA has already soured people. Take a look at what happened when the original copy restriction scheme for Spore was announced. The backlash caused them to scale it back.
They don't want the press, just like what's happening right now with Ubi. They do care about their costs, there's no getting around that.
But... that really doesn't matter.
On top of that, DRM eats away at their revenue for each year that they support their customers. For example, if I install Spore right now, EA has to have some server somewhere grant me access to it. They pay people to code that service, maintain the servers, and man the phones for the cases that go wrong or if I go through too many activations.
I really don't understand why they think this is a viable alternative especially when they cannot actually point to an empty bank vault where a bunch of money is missing.
I don't really understand why my post was modded down. What's so inflammatory about saying that DRM costs the publishers/developers money, too?
Technically true, however they'll keep those servers running because they don't want the backlash.
Finally somebody starts to get it. When you make it more convenient to pirate the game than to pay for it there's something badly wrong.
On top of that, DRM eats away at their revenue for each year that they support their customers. For example, if I install Spore right now, EA has to have some server somewhere grant me access to it. They pay people to code that service, maintain the servers, and man the phones for the cases that go wrong or if I go through too many activations.
I really don't understand why they think this is a viable alternative especially when they cannot actually point to an empty bank vault where a bunch of money is missing.