To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal, just point out that Google is no longer streets ahead of everyone else. I think that is a fair assessment.
To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal,he's just trying to write a review that appeases the partner and sponsor of their site/company (namely Microsoft), because otherwise, if he was acting as a real journalist, he'd have done something much more akin to an actual study instead of "Yeah, I typed in a few search terms and rated the results. Bing Rulz!". I think that is a fair assessment.
Is there any moderation-tag for "super-duper-insightful-(plus-funny)?"
I think that's accomplished by an equal balance of Troll, Underrated, Overrated, Interesting and Funny. At least, that's how I interpret how others mod my posts.;-)
That's all well and good, but it still doesn't change the fact that MacOS didn't even have *any* form of preemptive multitasking before OSX.
--Jeremy
Technically, MacOS9 to be accurate (for programs that used it's extended APIs). As my earlier response pointed out, he shoulda compared it to NT and not Win95. The post above, that you are responding to, was my additional clarification to support my earlier post (the one that pointed out he should have compared it to NT and not 95), nothing more or less.;-)
I probably should have responded to myself to make that clearer (as Slashdot seems to reorder posts, making it hard to note such things); but I talk to myself enough as it is, so I try to limit such things from happening online as well.
Ummm, those are prefab homes, not trailer homes. A trailer home is a home that can be towed like a trailer. You are confusing a "home that can be towed as/like a trailer" with "a prefab home brought in (usually in sections) on the back of a flatbed truck"
No, no, no, no, no....you misunderstand. They were HIRED. Yes, hired, because of their "potential" to add to the company. Of course, MS hasn't figured out what their job descriptions will be, but still. Being hired for a job you don't go to is completely different than "bought off". Completely different. Really.
If that's true, then the bad things are as follows:
They'll possibly be used to help close the holes (and find remaining ones) to help deter others from doing the same as they did.
Once someone else finds another exploit, their jobs will be in jeopardy (unless MS deems they are more worthwhile than the current dev team, in trying to fix and patch the exploits).
If or when they lose their jobs, they'll have already have either raised the ire of the outside dev community or lost all credibility.
Though I wont speculate on whether you are correct, I also sure as heck will NOT bet against you.
Wow, those R&S analyzers are some serious tools! I was just looking at frequency analyzers over at DealExtreme, where they have a dirt-cheap handheld model that sniffs out cellular frequencies for $60. Or they could have hung a cell jammer in the room for about a hundred. Or if they really thought they had to have the fancy gear, they probably could have hired in a contractor who would have sniffed around for maybe $300 per hour, and known what he was doing.
Was it was really worth the $40,000 they probably spent on them?
Oh, that's right. It's a government organization. Spending money is in their job description.
What's worse is this... I've never cheated on an exam, but if it were me in class, I guess I'd be suspected of being guilty of such. Something to do with owning a smartphone that's always sending and receiving data (besides the normal stuff, it checks my servers to make sure they are online and running every 3 minutes, and does a variety of similar things).
I guess in reality, they only proved that people didnt turn off their cell phones. As circumstantial evidence, assuming that rule was clearly disseminated, I guess it is sufficient evidence to "prove" cheating.
I just want to expound on the Win95 thing. First, it called DOS to set up PSPs for full 32 bit apps. It heavily relied upon (at initial release and up until Win98 or OSR2) DOS drivers for many devices. Many apps (heck, including even the Windows Installer - right up into the Windows XP days) still had legacy 16bit code that called 16bit Windows functions that did not pre-emptively multitask. The VxD model released in Win95 was horrendous and had a terrible penalty for calling any of the needed 16bit services or API. Numerous of the older Win32 API calls (v1.25 and below) were poorly (or not at all) implemented in a fashion suitable for pre-emptive multitasking. Since conventional memory and REAL MODE DOS was used for PSPs for every app, 32bit or not, limitations were imposed on even true 32bit apps. The "task switcher" mechanism was one of the worst ever written and was just barely outside of the cooperative multitasking category causing the inability to do any true time-sensitive multitasking on anything resource intensive. Thread management was abysmal and incurred penalties that also prevented time-critical multitasking. I could go on and on.
In THEORY Windows 95 was a true preemptive multitasking OS. But the theory did not fit the reality. It took years since the original Windows 93 plan (and it's actual release as Windows 95) to get "almost there" (WinME's release, as terrible as that was in other respects).
Also in all fairness, the problem decreased with each new release and with updated apps and drivers (and less dependence on DOS Win16 calls, and ancient Win32 calls by such). But on the other hand, a bunch of 16bit code persisted right into the XP age (as mentioned earlier, the Windows Installer as one example). Of course, since XP handled running such code differently, it did not suffer the same penalties.
Somewhere out there (and possibly as evidence in the DOJ case) is a CompUSA teleconference with the... morons... errr, sorry... lying thieves... oops, that's not what I meant... programming and management team for Win95, where they refuse to dispute, that "theory" aside, due to those limitations, it's really for all intents and purposes, Windows on top of DOS and is not a true preemptive multitasking OS, (and admit that they dont care because their customers won't know the difference). And Microsoft themselves, published various... notes? notices? (cant think of the right word), advising users to basically do the impossible (in order to have a preemptive multitasking environment), namely use only true 32bit Win95 drivers, fully 32bit apps (even though various of MS's own apps were not), dont boot into safe mode (which certain games and other apps required) and a few other suggestion. Of course, most or all of those were impossible during the days of Win95. And they knew it.
It's kinda like making a car (for road driving) that you claim can reach 250mph. Sure it can. In theory. But did you remember to mention it has to be secured on rails and run jet fuel, and a variety of other criteria not possible by 99% of the people who buy it? Theories are great. The reality was Win95 was semi-preemptively multitasking under all but idiotically rare scenarios. With each subsequent Win9x/ME release slowly improving.
Not that I was Microsoft's and CompUSA's chosen Win95 support technician for CompUSA Vienna 281 during the alpha, beta, RC and release phases (and beyond) or anything.
It's kinda like how (in theory) the initial release of Windows Phone 7 multitasks... with the caveat that in reality, what it multitasks is absolutely nothing... followed just recently by it finally multitasking Zune. Theories are nice. Reality is better.
This is not intended as a rant. It is intended to be educational, since many people simply do not know the history of PCs, OS's for them and so on; and what information out there of late seems more focused on theoreticals than it is on reality and implementation.
Wow, I must be getting old... I've heard them called that (and done the same myself) for decades. Or EXEs, executables, programs, COM files (for that class of executables), and of course applications.
Really? You're saying there was a 100 years gap between Windows 95 and OS X?
It was 6 years. Of course that wasn't because Microsoft wasn't slow to get there. It's that Apple (when Jobs wasn't around) was even slower. Jobs own NeXT operating system had pre-emptive multi-tasking 7 years before Windows did.
So whilst in that particular technological point Microsoft wasn't playing catch up to Apple, they were certainly playing catch-up to Steve Jobs.
You mean NT (not 95, which was released later and didnt have anything that could truly be called preemptive multitasking (due to various limitations in drivers, holdover DOS calls, Win16 calls, VxDs, memory management subsystems kludged together, and so on that made the "preemptive" part either "sorta" or "in theory"), but otherwise, yeah. Not quite 100 years since NT. Not even close.
Since neither of us are able to come up with figures I'll concede that perhaps people aren't 'embracing' 7 in droves in the same way they were with XP, but they absolutely are NOT rejecting it as the earlier poster stated, it has certainly been very successful even in light of the economic crisis and significantly slower growth (if any) of the PC market.
Apologies, I did find figures. I was kinda busy at the time though, and didnt post the links. Sorry about that.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1210067,00.asp
34% marketshare in a year and 4ish months, putting it in the lead (due to the plethora of other Windows versions out that ate the rest, such as Win98, WinME, Win2K and Win95 holdouts).
At the 11 month mark: "Microsoft's Windows XP is gaining market share among Internet users, according to analyst firm WebSideStory.
The year-old operating system is now being used by 20 percent of client computers on the Internet, making it the second-most popular, trailing Windows 98, which is on 37 percent "
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26285775_ITM
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Microsoft+Windows+XP+Captures+20%25+Market+Share+on+the+Internet+in...-a092261099
In four and a half years, WinXP took over 95% of the Windows marketshare... in four years, Vista has... umm... bombed - and even comparing Vista and Windows 7 COMBINED, the 43% is nowhere near the 95%+ that XP gained in a near similar time frame.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article675138.ece
Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Besides the fact that it probably doesn't quite apply to FB, I thought that the 4th was repealed in the last ten or so years... sure seems like it at times.;-)
I just recently read an article from late 2002 stating that XP was projected to surpass the previous versions in another few months. Quite a bit different than 20%. But again, a lot of people ran in droves away from WinME.
Also keep in mind that Vista has had 4 years now to be "embraced" and we know how that turned out. The marketshare that 7 has is almost solely due to new purchases and Vista upgrades. The decline in the XP market has been very very slow. That was not the case with XP, which ate away at 98 and ME pretty quickly in comparison.
He could be referring to the fact (as already covered on Slashdot within the last week or two) that Windows Vista and Windows 7 combined still have less marketshare than Windows XP. That would be my guess. Doesn't sound like "embracing" anymore, does it?
Doesn't seem too different from the windows 95 or XP take-ups at the time.
Not debating that (but if you research it, you will find the XP uptake was far better than Vista or 7 - possibly due to ME sucking horrendously and XP actually bringing a lot of new things to the table). Regardless of that, people aren't "embracing" Windows 7 or Vista.
Those days are over with the general public rejecting both Vista and 7. (Rejecting 7 is harder since OEMs aren't allowed to sell XP any longer)
So how did the public 'reject 7'? It would seem many have embraced 7.
He could be referring to the fact (as already covered on Slashdot within the last week or two) that Windows Vista and Windows 7 combined still have less marketshare than Windows XP. That would be my guess. Doesn't sound like "embracing" anymore, does it?
Though, I have heard of a lot of Windows Vista users who have embraced Windows 7...
if you actually know what you are doing (and care) you don't do this sort of testing by wandering around the campus saying "Can you hear me now?". You make actual measurements. There are instruments designed for this purpose.
Wow!!! Someone needs to send an email to Verizon!!!!;-)
Scherotter said while a few major apps will be able to multitask, such as Pandora, the music streaming app that will play in the background while the user is doing something else, independent apps will not, for now. Scherotter said that eventually, independent apps will be multitask-capable, but he wouldn't say when that would be.
Of course they didn't note exactly what those 'few major apps' are.
NOT correct. Please don't count on article titles to be correct. That's like counting on a slashdot summary being correct.
Currently, only Microsoft apps can multitask. The key words in the announcement... errr... sorry, article, are in bold below:
More importantly that multitasking is coming to Windows Phone 7, just no firm date;
Scherotter said while a few major apps will be able to multitask, such as Pandora, the music streaming app that will play in the background while the user is doing something else, independent apps will not, for now. Scherotter said that eventually, independent apps will be multitask-capable, but he wouldn't say when that would be.
And if you read the update, currently Zune is cited as the app that can do this.
So, let me correct your statement:
Actually there are a few major apps (third party) that MS has promised, at some future undisclosed date, may be allowed to run in the background.
Not sure about you, but when Microsoft DOES announce dates for things (Windows 93... 94... Vista as a couple examples) or features (those left out of Vista as examples), it's already something I dont lend much credence to. When they aren't even willing to announce a date, I have NO idea what to think.
That aside, point is, GP was correct. WP7 does not multitask anything but a few Microsoft released apps (or at least Zune).
A -1 Wrong mod (for you) would have saved me so much typing.;-)
Sections B1 and B3 cover that, even though Section B2 seems to say it doesn't. At least, that's my interpretation. I guess we won't know until things progress.
If WL or Twitter seem to think that's what the gov't want, I am curious if that's because that is what the request that accompanied the subpoena asked for. "Give us this, this and this... here's the subpoena" - which would mean that such a fashion is how the gov't is interpreting the scope of the subpoena. But alas, I suspect we don't have enough information to do more than speculate as we have been doing. I'll grant you that either you are correct, I am correct, we're both partially correct, or we are both very wrong. And honestly, I will admit I (we?) don't know, and simply have my/our possible interpretations on the matter.;-)
Ooops, sorry. Let me rephrase my earlier response (taking into account you do not have a Twitter account, thus may not have been aware of this):
Let's assume my interpretation is flawed. They will STILL gain that information from having the WL account info. In each Twitter account will be a list of the Twitter account's followers, and anything they've tweeted to WL as well. So, regardless of my interpretation of Section B, they'll get that info anyway.
Apologies for the poor wording that may have seemed snippy since I overlooked your statement that you do not have a Twitter account.
Let's assume my interpretation is flawed. They will STILL gain that information from having the WL account info, or did you forget that your followers is one of the details that shows up in your account information? And anything they've tweeted to WL as well.
The part YOU apparently did NOT read. Sections B1-B3, which ask for information on those who have connected to or from the WL people's accounts (ie: tweeted them or received a tweet from them? Subscribed to them? Or hit the "Follow" button? Those ARE common uses of "connected"/"connection"/etc in the Internet world). In addition, Section B3 pretty much invalidates the anonymity seemingly being granted in Section B2 (or at least a large portion thereof).
And from there, a further fishing expedition can take place to request even more information on whatever of the 637K people the govt has further interest in.
Slashdot Mirror
404 Not Found
And here I was hoping for some new, funny, Google Search Page variant. :-(
To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal, just point out that Google is no longer streets ahead of everyone else. I think that is a fair assessment.
To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal,he's just trying to write a review that appeases the partner and sponsor of their site/company (namely Microsoft), because otherwise, if he was acting as a real journalist, he'd have done something much more akin to an actual study instead of "Yeah, I typed in a few search terms and rated the results. Bing Rulz!". I think that is a fair assessment.
FTFY
Is there any moderation-tag for "super-duper-insightful-(plus-funny)?"
I think that's accomplished by an equal balance of Troll, Underrated, Overrated, Interesting and Funny. At least, that's how I interpret how others mod my posts. ;-)
That's all well and good, but it still doesn't change the fact that MacOS didn't even have *any* form of preemptive multitasking before OSX.
--Jeremy
Technically, MacOS9 to be accurate (for programs that used it's extended APIs). As my earlier response pointed out, he shoulda compared it to NT and not Win95. The post above, that you are responding to, was my additional clarification to support my earlier post (the one that pointed out he should have compared it to NT and not 95), nothing more or less. ;-)
I probably should have responded to myself to make that clearer (as Slashdot seems to reorder posts, making it hard to note such things); but I talk to myself enough as it is, so I try to limit such things from happening online as well.
-Rob
Sadly, we've always been retards.
Speak for yourself!!!!
With that said, "Sadly, I've always been a retard!!!" ;-)
I want my blanket back!!!
Ummm, those are prefab homes, not trailer homes. A trailer home is a home that can be towed like a trailer. You are confusing a "home that can be towed as/like a trailer" with "a prefab home brought in (usually in sections) on the back of a flatbed truck"
Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.
I believe that is spelled penis, and I doubt it.
But if you stop and think about it, the 12" pianist claim does seem a lot more believable, doesn't it?
Do any relevant institutions /not/ have similar rules and procedures?
Dunno, we were still using stone tablets when I went to college.
No, no, no, no, no....you misunderstand. They were HIRED. Yes, hired, because of their "potential" to add to the company. Of course, MS hasn't figured out what their job descriptions will be, but still. Being hired for a job you don't go to is completely different than "bought off". Completely different. Really.
If that's true, then the bad things are as follows:
They'll possibly be used to help close the holes (and find remaining ones) to help deter others from doing the same as they did.
Once someone else finds another exploit, their jobs will be in jeopardy (unless MS deems they are more worthwhile than the current dev team, in trying to fix and patch the exploits).
If or when they lose their jobs, they'll have already have either raised the ire of the outside dev community or lost all credibility.
Though I wont speculate on whether you are correct, I also sure as heck will NOT bet against you.
Wow, those R&S analyzers are some serious tools! I was just looking at frequency analyzers over at DealExtreme, where they have a dirt-cheap handheld model that sniffs out cellular frequencies for $60. Or they could have hung a cell jammer in the room for about a hundred. Or if they really thought they had to have the fancy gear, they probably could have hired in a contractor who would have sniffed around for maybe $300 per hour, and known what he was doing.
Was it was really worth the $40,000 they probably spent on them?
Oh, that's right. It's a government organization. Spending money is in their job description.
What's worse is this... I've never cheated on an exam, but if it were me in class, I guess I'd be suspected of being guilty of such. Something to do with owning a smartphone that's always sending and receiving data (besides the normal stuff, it checks my servers to make sure they are online and running every 3 minutes, and does a variety of similar things).
I guess in reality, they only proved that people didnt turn off their cell phones. As circumstantial evidence, assuming that rule was clearly disseminated, I guess it is sufficient evidence to "prove" cheating.
I just want to expound on the Win95 thing. First, it called DOS to set up PSPs for full 32 bit apps. It heavily relied upon (at initial release and up until Win98 or OSR2) DOS drivers for many devices. Many apps (heck, including even the Windows Installer - right up into the Windows XP days) still had legacy 16bit code that called 16bit Windows functions that did not pre-emptively multitask. The VxD model released in Win95 was horrendous and had a terrible penalty for calling any of the needed 16bit services or API. Numerous of the older Win32 API calls (v1.25 and below) were poorly (or not at all) implemented in a fashion suitable for pre-emptive multitasking. Since conventional memory and REAL MODE DOS was used for PSPs for every app, 32bit or not, limitations were imposed on even true 32bit apps. The "task switcher" mechanism was one of the worst ever written and was just barely outside of the cooperative multitasking category causing the inability to do any true time-sensitive multitasking on anything resource intensive. Thread management was abysmal and incurred penalties that also prevented time-critical multitasking. I could go on and on.
In THEORY Windows 95 was a true preemptive multitasking OS. But the theory did not fit the reality. It took years since the original Windows 93 plan (and it's actual release as Windows 95) to get "almost there" (WinME's release, as terrible as that was in other respects).
Also in all fairness, the problem decreased with each new release and with updated apps and drivers (and less dependence on DOS Win16 calls, and ancient Win32 calls by such). But on the other hand, a bunch of 16bit code persisted right into the XP age (as mentioned earlier, the Windows Installer as one example). Of course, since XP handled running such code differently, it did not suffer the same penalties.
Somewhere out there (and possibly as evidence in the DOJ case) is a CompUSA teleconference with the... morons... errr, sorry... lying thieves... oops, that's not what I meant... programming and management team for Win95, where they refuse to dispute, that "theory" aside, due to those limitations, it's really for all intents and purposes, Windows on top of DOS and is not a true preemptive multitasking OS, (and admit that they dont care because their customers won't know the difference). And Microsoft themselves, published various... notes? notices? (cant think of the right word), advising users to basically do the impossible (in order to have a preemptive multitasking environment), namely use only true 32bit Win95 drivers, fully 32bit apps (even though various of MS's own apps were not), dont boot into safe mode (which certain games and other apps required) and a few other suggestion. Of course, most or all of those were impossible during the days of Win95. And they knew it.
It's kinda like making a car (for road driving) that you claim can reach 250mph. Sure it can. In theory. But did you remember to mention it has to be secured on rails and run jet fuel, and a variety of other criteria not possible by 99% of the people who buy it? Theories are great. The reality was Win95 was semi-preemptively multitasking under all but idiotically rare scenarios. With each subsequent Win9x/ME release slowly improving.
Not that I was Microsoft's and CompUSA's chosen Win95 support technician for CompUSA Vienna 281 during the alpha, beta, RC and release phases (and beyond) or anything.
It's kinda like how (in theory) the initial release of Windows Phone 7 multitasks... with the caveat that in reality, what it multitasks is absolutely nothing... followed just recently by it finally multitasking Zune. Theories are nice. Reality is better.
This is not intended as a rant. It is intended to be educational, since many people simply do not know the history of PCs, OS's for them and so on; and what information out there of late seems more focused on theoreticals than it is on reality and implementation.
Wow, I must be getting old... I've heard them called that (and done the same myself) for decades. Or EXEs, executables, programs, COM files (for that class of executables), and of course applications.
Really? You're saying there was a 100 years gap between Windows 95 and OS X?
It was 6 years. Of course that wasn't because Microsoft wasn't slow to get there. It's that Apple (when Jobs wasn't around) was even slower. Jobs own NeXT operating system had pre-emptive multi-tasking 7 years before Windows did.
So whilst in that particular technological point Microsoft wasn't playing catch up to Apple, they were certainly playing catch-up to Steve Jobs.
You mean NT (not 95, which was released later and didnt have anything that could truly be called preemptive multitasking (due to various limitations in drivers, holdover DOS calls, Win16 calls, VxDs, memory management subsystems kludged together, and so on that made the "preemptive" part either "sorta" or "in theory"), but otherwise, yeah. Not quite 100 years since NT. Not even close.
Since neither of us are able to come up with figures I'll concede that perhaps people aren't 'embracing' 7 in droves in the same way they were with XP, but they absolutely are NOT rejecting it as the earlier poster stated, it has certainly been very successful even in light of the economic crisis and significantly slower growth (if any) of the PC market.
Apologies, I did find figures. I was kinda busy at the time though, and didnt post the links. Sorry about that.
In a month and a half, XP: "They've already done 10 million licenses, so they're well on their way to beating the first-year totals for 95," Gillen said.
-Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-277211.html#ixzz1AnXkgsnN"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1210067,00.asp
34% marketshare in a year and 4ish months, putting it in the lead (due to the plethora of other Windows versions out that ate the rest, such as Win98, WinME, Win2K and Win95 holdouts).
At the 11 month mark: "Microsoft's Windows XP is gaining market share among Internet users, according to analyst firm WebSideStory. The year-old operating system is now being used by 20 percent of client computers on the Internet, making it the second-most popular, trailing Windows 98, which is on 37 percent "
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26285775_ITM
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Microsoft+Windows+XP+Captures+20%25+Market+Share+on+the+Internet+in...-a092261099
In four and a half years, WinXP took over 95% of the Windows marketshare... in four years, Vista has... umm... bombed - and even comparing Vista and Windows 7 COMBINED, the 43% is nowhere near the 95%+ that XP gained in a near similar time frame.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article675138.ece
Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Besides the fact that it probably doesn't quite apply to FB, I thought that the 4th was repealed in the last ten or so years... sure seems like it at times. ;-)
I just recently read an article from late 2002 stating that XP was projected to surpass the previous versions in another few months. Quite a bit different than 20%. But again, a lot of people ran in droves away from WinME.
Also keep in mind that Vista has had 4 years now to be "embraced" and we know how that turned out. The marketshare that 7 has is almost solely due to new purchases and Vista upgrades. The decline in the XP market has been very very slow. That was not the case with XP, which ate away at 98 and ME pretty quickly in comparison.
He could be referring to the fact (as already covered on Slashdot within the last week or two) that Windows Vista and Windows 7 combined still have less marketshare than Windows XP. That would be my guess. Doesn't sound like "embracing" anymore, does it?
Doesn't seem too different from the windows 95 or XP take-ups at the time.
Not debating that (but if you research it, you will find the XP uptake was far better than Vista or 7 - possibly due to ME sucking horrendously and XP actually bringing a lot of new things to the table). Regardless of that, people aren't "embracing" Windows 7 or Vista.
Those days are over with the general public rejecting both Vista and 7. (Rejecting 7 is harder since OEMs aren't allowed to sell XP any longer)
So how did the public 'reject 7'? It would seem many have embraced 7.
He could be referring to the fact (as already covered on Slashdot within the last week or two) that Windows Vista and Windows 7 combined still have less marketshare than Windows XP. That would be my guess. Doesn't sound like "embracing" anymore, does it?
Though, I have heard of a lot of Windows Vista users who have embraced Windows 7...
if you actually know what you are doing (and care) you don't do this sort of testing by wandering around the campus saying "Can you hear me now?". You make actual measurements. There are instruments designed for this purpose.
Wow!!! Someone needs to send an email to Verizon!!!! ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPwPo-IAQ-E
Actually there are a few apps (third party) that MS has allowed to run in the background.
http://www.wpcentral.com/multitasking-coming-wp7-pandora-can-multitask-now
Of course they didn't note exactly what those 'few major apps' are.
NOT correct. Please don't count on article titles to be correct. That's like counting on a slashdot summary being correct.
Currently, only Microsoft apps can multitask. The key words in the announcement... errr... sorry, article, are in bold below:
More importantly that multitasking is coming to Windows Phone 7, just no firm date;
Scherotter said while a few major apps will be able to multitask, such as Pandora, the music streaming app that will play in the background while the user is doing something else, independent apps will not, for now. Scherotter said that eventually, independent apps will be multitask-capable, but he wouldn't say when that would be.
And if you read the update, currently Zune is cited as the app that can do this.
So, let me correct your statement:
Actually there are a few major apps (third party) that MS has promised, at some future undisclosed date, may be allowed to run in the background.
Not sure about you, but when Microsoft DOES announce dates for things (Windows 93... 94... Vista as a couple examples) or features (those left out of Vista as examples), it's already something I dont lend much credence to. When they aren't even willing to announce a date, I have NO idea what to think.
That aside, point is, GP was correct. WP7 does not multitask anything but a few Microsoft released apps (or at least Zune).
A -1 Wrong mod (for you) would have saved me so much typing. ;-)
Sections B1 and B3 cover that, even though Section B2 seems to say it doesn't. At least, that's my interpretation. I guess we won't know until things progress.
If WL or Twitter seem to think that's what the gov't want, I am curious if that's because that is what the request that accompanied the subpoena asked for. "Give us this, this and this... here's the subpoena" - which would mean that such a fashion is how the gov't is interpreting the scope of the subpoena. But alas, I suspect we don't have enough information to do more than speculate as we have been doing. I'll grant you that either you are correct, I am correct, we're both partially correct, or we are both very wrong. And honestly, I will admit I (we?) don't know, and simply have my/our possible interpretations on the matter. ;-)
Ooops, sorry. Let me rephrase my earlier response (taking into account you do not have a Twitter account, thus may not have been aware of this):
Let's assume my interpretation is flawed. They will STILL gain that information from having the WL account info. In each Twitter account will be a list of the Twitter account's followers, and anything they've tweeted to WL as well. So, regardless of my interpretation of Section B, they'll get that info anyway.
Apologies for the poor wording that may have seemed snippy since I overlooked your statement that you do not have a Twitter account.
Let's assume my interpretation is flawed. They will STILL gain that information from having the WL account info, or did you forget that your followers is one of the details that shows up in your account information? And anything they've tweeted to WL as well.
The part YOU apparently did NOT read. Sections B1-B3, which ask for information on those who have connected to or from the WL people's accounts (ie: tweeted them or received a tweet from them? Subscribed to them? Or hit the "Follow" button? Those ARE common uses of "connected"/"connection"/etc in the Internet world). In addition, Section B3 pretty much invalidates the anonymity seemingly being granted in Section B2 (or at least a large portion thereof).
And from there, a further fishing expedition can take place to request even more information on whatever of the 637K people the govt has further interest in.