Well, no, they haven't stopped selling them. And they have kind of leaked the idea that Symbian will still be around if Windows Phone fails. But one of the very big reasons Nokia's in trouble is that SymbianOS sales are tanking very fast... they fell by 29% in 1Q2012. And that's precisely because Mr. Elop over there really did Osborne the company. He announced that Windows Phone was their future, and that SymbianOS and Linux phones would go away... and that a good year before you could even get a Windows Phone from Nokia.
Sure, this isn't going to affect their dumb phone business. But that's a barely profitable thing, anyway. They did kill off their own Linux Phone distro, and they're not making any new models. Users are not always smart, but enough of them know that you don't want to buy a smartphone that's being ended... you want apps and OS updates over the course of that device's lifetime, which you don't get if they stop development and scare all the developers away.
And now that's officially true for the Windows 7 Phone series, too -- none are upgradeable to Windows 8 Phone, Windows 8 apps don't run on them. Sure, Nokia and Microsoft argue that Windows 7 Phone apps will run on Windows 8, but if Windows 8 even has weak initial adoption, it'll dwarf the installed base of Windows 7 Phone virtually overnight. Who's going to keep developing Windows 7 Phone apps?
They're hurtin' for certain... they just announced another 10,000 jobs will be gone by the end of 2013. They lost $1.2 billion in the first quarter, and have been warning investors that the 2Q2012 losses (not yet announced... the quarter ended June 30) will likely be even larger. Sure, they had $5 billion in cash reserves at the start of the year, but at this rate of loss, that won't last long.
Doesn't matter. Leveraging your monopoly power in one market to take a controlling share in another market is going to get the attention of anti-trust folks. That's exactly what Microsoft did when they decided the Internet was important, released IE, tried to balkanize the internet, put Netscape out of business, etc.
This time, though, Microsoft knows what they're doing. The difference here is that they're enjoined from certain anti-competitive behaviors in their monopoly area, which was very much reduced to x86 PCs, due to the ignorance of the judges involved. But that's where it stands. Judging either Microsoft to be leveraging monopoly powers in x86 desktop/laptop/tablet to take on ARM tablet/phone, or judging that the distinction between x86 and ARM is ultimately an artificial one and, by 2012 standards, they are the same thing -- these things take court cases and time.
First, Microsoft has to actually be successful enough to get the courts involved. They drag their feet, push the cases back, take an extra year or two to ultimately get slapped on the wrist with a wet noodle. Meanwhile, the damage is already done in the ARM market. This is clearly the direction Microsoft is shooting for. They might not succeed, of course, so in that case, no harm, no foul. But it's pretty clearly they see ARM on tablets, phones, netbooks, maybe even scaling into the laptop and desktop market as an important part of Microsoft's future. It's also pretty clear there's going to be pretty total overlap between ARM and x86 in most of these markets, simply because Intel and AMD are drooling over these things as much as Microsoft is.
About the only way to head them off would be to bring them up early on the basis that ARM and x86 are the same market. But that would be just as difficult today, given that the smartphone + tablet market is a pretty significant force against the x86 market, at least in units if not dollars (and that's just applications processors -- if you add up all CPUs, ARM wins). That would backfire, with Microsoft judged to no longer have a monopoly in the "personal computer" market.
It's very much like the DVD player world. You can't get license to the DVD IP to build a DVD player unless you agree to all the requirements, including generating Macrovision on analog for copy protection, and obeying the region codes.
Microsoft actually has an additional level of control: Windows simply won't boot on ARM without UEFI encryption enabled. Windows can't know that it might be possible to disable in a menu somewhere, so MS uses the same licensing hammer to make you agree that can't be done.
And as we've seen, there have never, ever been DVD players released commercially that could be put into Region Free mode, disable Macrovision, or any of that stuff. Nope. Not here. Nothing to see. Move along...
I think maybe they're smarter than that. Given the success of iOS and Android, it's hard to blame ARM if anyone else is having trouble selling it. Not to mention pretty much every dumb phone. If Windows ARM tablets don't sell and Windows x86 tablets do, that'll be easier to attribute to Microsoft, and the word getting out about Microsoft.
It's not just the lock-down. Or the lack of compatibility with anything folks know today as "Windows". Or the unappealing UI. Or the very likely possibility that ARM devices never get any sort of version upgrades (eg, service packs yes, Windows 9 no). Or the lack of OEM interest, to the point that Microsoft had to make their own tablets. Or the lack of applications that actually do run on Metro. But add that all up, and there are plenty of reasons having nothing to do with ARM about why this is not a guaranteed win for Microsoft.
The specification ALLOWS a disable option. Microsoft won't allow that to be implemented on the ARM versions of the UEFI BIOS they support, and they have basically said it's up to the manufacturer to implement this. Or not.
And, as someone else pointed out, this will have you booting into the BIOS any time you want to go between Windows and Something Else. At least until someone puts it the BIOS as a boot-time function key toggle... at that point, I probably won't be too concerned. Of course, I won't be running Windows 8 anyway, so no problems for at least three years.
The difference is that simple "here's what the lawyers are telling us" thing. Microsoft was judged a monopoly, but very specifically on x86-based PCs. That's just the way the court defined it. Now, as with their IE vs. Netscape things, it's not necessarily kosher for a proven monopoly to use their monopoly powers to grab some new territory. But as Microsoft has always proven, it's better to do that damage now and get slapped on the wrist later, with the damage probably undoable, than to just not do it.
So they'd like to lock-down all PCs. We have known that for years -- they've been talking about doing just that for years. But the lawyers are certainly telling MS brass that you can't just go and make it virtually impossible to put something other than Windows on every new PC. So they're leaving that option in the hands of the manufacturers, and the simple fact that virtually all PCs will be shipped with the locks enabled, if there's a key hidden in there were only we computer savvy folk know where to find it.
But ARM isn't x86, and Microsoft has no monopoly there. So they're going for it -- grabbing for all they can. Same reason the ARM systems won't allow anyone who isn't Microsoft to use the Win32 APIs. They're all there on the ARM machines, just as on the x86 machines. But Microsoft is legally bound to make all OS calls they use available to all developers. But clearly, the lawyers have decided that, too, only applies to x86 machines.
This is very likely to be a train wreck of a launch. Buyers have enough trouble understanding the tech, now they're going to have to figure out why one tablet sold with Windows will run all their existing Windows programs (though it'll need a mouse and keyboard, but ok, I like those on my Android tablet when running shells, etc), and the one sold next to it will only run brand new stuff you have to buy directly from Microsoft. Should be fun to watch.
Well... here's the thing. ARM PCs running Windows have to include the locked BIOS, with no facility to turn it off. x86 PCs running Windows MAY OPTIONALLY including a setting in the BIOS to disable the secure locked-down boot. But they don't have to.
This really needs to get a grass roots awareness campaign behind it, something big and visible like the way we all shut down the original DivX (bent on replacing DVD with something even more evil) all those years ago. Consumers know so little about PCs, they won't even know the questions to ask when buying new ones unless they're beat over the head with the information.
If you're even slightly serious about photography, no cell phone upgrade will ever be enough. You'll get better photos from a $100 P&S camera than any cell phone.
Cricket and MetroPCS actually do have their own networks. They may roam to one of the others, and if not, the networks are too small to be of value. But not everyone is riding on Sprint, though most of the specialized "carriers" are (Virgin, Boost, etc).
It doesn't even have to be unlimited. I'm happy with my unlimited plan -- I get all the data I've paid for. That works both ways... I get what I need, but I'm not compelled to use up what I don't need, and I'm not paying for unused data.
Moving to these limited plans, though, everything's set up in the carrier's favor. If I buy 2GB, I should expect to get that 2GB... nope, you can use up to 2GB, otherwise you lose it. Imagine if your local gas station charged you for a full tank every time you came to refill, whether you needed it or not. Or your electric company charged for 2000kWhr per month, even if you used only 1000kWhr... and charged you an extra $50 for every 100kWhr over your limit?
In short, the things we're letting the telcos get away with are not acceptable for pretty much any utility. They really need to be shown, economically, that we won't play this game. I certainly will not. A flat rate per MB, even a flat $10 or whatever per GB would be acceptable... it doesn't have to be unlimited. I just shouldn't be paying excessively when I need more in a month, or paying for usused data (within limits... not suggesting they charge by the KB, but they certainly could) when I have lower needs in a month.
They'd probably rethink the plans if every customer had a way to just burn off the excess data they've paid for every month. The telcos like the plans as is because, like most of us, we like it when people just give us money and don't expect anything in return.
Not so much. We have the most radical leftist president that this country has ever seen, supported by a majority in the Senate and not that long ago super majorities in both houses, not to mention a significant portion of the judiciary supported by outright statist revolutionaries
Yes... he's so leftist, he's managed to push through things like the Republican Party's original healthcare plan. And the lowest taxes since the Truman era.
It's sad that the state of education in this country has fallen to such a low level that so many people don't even understand what a "radical leftist" actually would be, they just use the words that Rush Limbaugh taught them to use, without knowing what they mean.
It is the density of towers... but It's not just the towers. AT&T and Verizon both have 850MHz for voice and data, and 700MHz for 4G, which propagate better, not to mention not getting so attenuated by buildings, forests, etc. (AT&T does need 1900MHz for one direction on their 3G connection). Sprint and T-Mo have only the 1900MHz channel for voice and Sprint's 3G. Sprint put WiMax at 2500MHz, which is worse yet... T-Mo's 3G is at 1700MHz and 2100MHz, so less robust. Sprint's putting their LTE at 800MHz, on the old Nextel frequency, so things may eventually get better with them... but that's a couple of years off, I suspect. And data only right now.
AT&T has also had a tower problem in some areas. When Cingular bought AT&T's mobile phone division, they nixed the old DAMPS system and put the whole company on GSM. But DAMPS had better range per cell. So in some areas, you have coverage that's spottier than it was intended to be, simply because of this (I'm sure they filled in extra cells in cities to deal with this, but it's still an issue in rural areas... one of the reasons AT&T drops more calls, the other being issues with the way GSM 2G does cell handoffs).
The real key is that you HAVE to buy the full price phone from Verizon, and they're certainly going to keep those full prices very artificially high. In reality, they don't offer much of a discount over the price a phone would actually sell for in a free market. Look at my Galaxy Nexus. That cost me $299 plus a 2-year contract agreement. Verizon will sell you one for $650 or so off-contract. Google will sell the universal GSM version through the Play Store for $399 (fully supported on both T-Mo and AT&T -- they finally got that right). So that's more or less the real street price you'd pay for these if the whole system wasn't rigged. Verizon and the others are getting these long-term commitments very cheap.
Of course it costs more. Verizon used to charge a flat fee for the "Family" plan, $10 for any device added, and then data based on the device and your requirements. Thus, my smartphone cost me $30 more per month than a dumb phone, and that's unlimited data (still is, as long as they don't just decide to void the contract and kick us to the new plan).
Now, they're charging you twice for the smartphone.... it's $20 or so more than a dumb phone doing exactly the same things. Sure, I might use voice and IM less on a smartphone, but that's absolutely not costing Verizon anything, since all the non-essential services are now unlimited. And I'm paying dramatically more for way less data, on top of the extra fee just to have a smartphone hooked into their system.
In short, they're just gouging smartphone users. No other reason but "we can". I would leave Verizon for Sprint, even with their lesser coverage, if I couldn't keep my current plan. Not even much of a choice.
Yup... the iPhone is their top seller. The iPad may get more attention, though, given that currently, Apple has 15% of the world's smartphone market, but over 50% of the tablet computer market.
I did actually see some clown using an iPad as a camera, a few weeks ago in Yosemite National Park. And while it was probably lighter than my Canon 60D and five lenses, I don't think for a moment it was easier to use. And you'd be way better off using even smartphone as a camera -- the iPad cameras are really meant for other things (augmented reality, video chat calls, etc). They're even worse than the already-pretty-horrible cameras like those of the iPhone.
The phone market is more settled than the tablet market, too. And controlled by powerful cellular telecom companies, whereas tablets are free of that. Same reason Microsoft is gambling their desktop dominance to claim a chunk of the tablet/phone market (and given their recent announcement of having orphaned all Windows 7 Phone users, OS and app wise, it seems to be the table they're most serious about).
Actually, I agree with that. Not a huge sports fan, but if there really were some kind of "Trans-human Olympics", which allowed the best combination of athletics and weird science, I'd be more likely to stick around past the opening ceremonies. Better a separate event than just letting it leak in to the regular Olympics. I'd also expect that cloned horse to eventually have bits of tiger or dinosaur DNA... now THAT would be a horse!
I'm sure there are MRI device companies more than happy to take your order.
Machines run between $1-$3million, plus maybe another $500K for the installation site. And they can cost $500K-$1M to run each year.... gotta keep that liquid nitrogen going for the superconducting magnets. The useful life of the typical machine these days is about seven years, though many healthcare companies are using them about twice as long. You know when you're getting treated at such a facility -- the machine's down on a regular basis.
Depends on where you live, I guess. Here in the good old US-of-A, my wife has been in for multiple MRIs and CT scans, treatment for cancer discovered two years ago. In our local (South Jersey) MRI facility, it's at least a week to get an appointment, most of the time. And they do the same thing... X-Ray, then MRI if they think it's needed. And most X-Rays are done at radiation specialty centers -- doctors rarely have X-Ray gear. Dentists, sure, because they're ok with very specific and simple gear. But the current state of the art makes the old family doctor's X-Ray machine a dinosaur.
We KNOW that these lower-range Terahertz-band radio waves do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or ionize atoms or molecules, which is the big problem with ionizing radiation such as high frequency UV and X-Rays. But there is some evidence that they may cause damage to DNA via non-linear resonance.
Thing about "completely safe"... it changes as you discover new ways to cause damage.
Medfield uses the same PowerVR SGX540 found in the TI OMAP 4xxx series, and going back to the original Samsung Galaxy phones. The forthcoming Clover Trail (Atom Z2580) goes to the dual core PowerVR SGX544MP2, for next year's tablets (maybe phones too?), which is basically a Direct3D 9.3 upgrade to the SGX543MP2 in the iPhone/iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, they haven't stopped selling them. And they have kind of leaked the idea that Symbian will still be around if Windows Phone fails. But one of the very big reasons Nokia's in trouble is that SymbianOS sales are tanking very fast... they fell by 29% in 1Q2012. And that's precisely because Mr. Elop over there really did Osborne the company. He announced that Windows Phone was their future, and that SymbianOS and Linux phones would go away... and that a good year before you could even get a Windows Phone from Nokia.
Sure, this isn't going to affect their dumb phone business. But that's a barely profitable thing, anyway. They did kill off their own Linux Phone distro, and they're not making any new models. Users are not always smart, but enough of them know that you don't want to buy a smartphone that's being ended... you want apps and OS updates over the course of that device's lifetime, which you don't get if they stop development and scare all the developers away.
And now that's officially true for the Windows 7 Phone series, too -- none are upgradeable to Windows 8 Phone, Windows 8 apps don't run on them. Sure, Nokia and Microsoft argue that Windows 7 Phone apps will run on Windows 8, but if Windows 8 even has weak initial adoption, it'll dwarf the installed base of Windows 7 Phone virtually overnight. Who's going to keep developing Windows 7 Phone apps?
They're hurtin' for certain... they just announced another 10,000 jobs will be gone by the end of 2013. They lost $1.2 billion in the first quarter, and have been warning investors that the 2Q2012 losses (not yet announced... the quarter ended June 30) will likely be even larger. Sure, they had $5 billion in cash reserves at the start of the year, but at this rate of loss, that won't last long.
Doesn't matter. Leveraging your monopoly power in one market to take a controlling share in another market is going to get the attention of anti-trust folks. That's exactly what Microsoft did when they decided the Internet was important, released IE, tried to balkanize the internet, put Netscape out of business, etc.
This time, though, Microsoft knows what they're doing. The difference here is that they're enjoined from certain anti-competitive behaviors in their monopoly area, which was very much reduced to x86 PCs, due to the ignorance of the judges involved. But that's where it stands. Judging either Microsoft to be leveraging monopoly powers in x86 desktop/laptop/tablet to take on ARM tablet/phone, or judging that the distinction between x86 and ARM is ultimately an artificial one and, by 2012 standards, they are the same thing -- these things take court cases and time.
First, Microsoft has to actually be successful enough to get the courts involved. They drag their feet, push the cases back, take an extra year or two to ultimately get slapped on the wrist with a wet noodle. Meanwhile, the damage is already done in the ARM market. This is clearly the direction Microsoft is shooting for. They might not succeed, of course, so in that case, no harm, no foul. But it's pretty clearly they see ARM on tablets, phones, netbooks, maybe even scaling into the laptop and desktop market as an important part of Microsoft's future. It's also pretty clear there's going to be pretty total overlap between ARM and x86 in most of these markets, simply because Intel and AMD are drooling over these things as much as Microsoft is.
About the only way to head them off would be to bring them up early on the basis that ARM and x86 are the same market. But that would be just as difficult today, given that the smartphone + tablet market is a pretty significant force against the x86 market, at least in units if not dollars (and that's just applications processors -- if you add up all CPUs, ARM wins). That would backfire, with Microsoft judged to no longer have a monopoly in the "personal computer" market.
It's very much like the DVD player world. You can't get license to the DVD IP to build a DVD player unless you agree to all the requirements, including generating Macrovision on analog for copy protection, and obeying the region codes.
Microsoft actually has an additional level of control: Windows simply won't boot on ARM without UEFI encryption enabled. Windows can't know that it might be possible to disable in a menu somewhere, so MS uses the same licensing hammer to make you agree that can't be done.
And as we've seen, there have never, ever been DVD players released commercially that could be put into Region Free mode, disable Macrovision, or any of that stuff. Nope. Not here. Nothing to see. Move along...
I think maybe they're smarter than that. Given the success of iOS and Android, it's hard to blame ARM if anyone else is having trouble selling it. Not to mention pretty much every dumb phone. If Windows ARM tablets don't sell and Windows x86 tablets do, that'll be easier to attribute to Microsoft, and the word getting out about Microsoft.
It's not just the lock-down. Or the lack of compatibility with anything folks know today as "Windows". Or the unappealing UI. Or the very likely possibility that ARM devices never get any sort of version upgrades (eg, service packs yes, Windows 9 no). Or the lack of OEM interest, to the point that Microsoft had to make their own tablets. Or the lack of applications that actually do run on Metro. But add that all up, and there are plenty of reasons having nothing to do with ARM about why this is not a guaranteed win for Microsoft.
IT STARTS WITH SAYING NO TO MICROSOFT.
You seem to be addressing symptoms. I'd like to see something done about the actual disease.
The specification ALLOWS a disable option. Microsoft won't allow that to be implemented on the ARM versions of the UEFI BIOS they support, and they have basically said it's up to the manufacturer to implement this. Or not.
And, as someone else pointed out, this will have you booting into the BIOS any time you want to go between Windows and Something Else. At least until someone puts it the BIOS as a boot-time function key toggle... at that point, I probably won't be too concerned. Of course, I won't be running Windows 8 anyway, so no problems for at least three years.
Of course Microsoft will support x86 PCs.
The difference is that simple "here's what the lawyers are telling us" thing. Microsoft was judged a monopoly, but very specifically on x86-based PCs. That's just the way the court defined it. Now, as with their IE vs. Netscape things, it's not necessarily kosher for a proven monopoly to use their monopoly powers to grab some new territory. But as Microsoft has always proven, it's better to do that damage now and get slapped on the wrist later, with the damage probably undoable, than to just not do it.
So they'd like to lock-down all PCs. We have known that for years -- they've been talking about doing just that for years. But the lawyers are certainly telling MS brass that you can't just go and make it virtually impossible to put something other than Windows on every new PC. So they're leaving that option in the hands of the manufacturers, and the simple fact that virtually all PCs will be shipped with the locks enabled, if there's a key hidden in there were only we computer savvy folk know where to find it.
But ARM isn't x86, and Microsoft has no monopoly there. So they're going for it -- grabbing for all they can. Same reason the ARM systems won't allow anyone who isn't Microsoft to use the Win32 APIs. They're all there on the ARM machines, just as on the x86 machines. But Microsoft is legally bound to make all OS calls they use available to all developers. But clearly, the lawyers have decided that, too, only applies to x86 machines.
This is very likely to be a train wreck of a launch. Buyers have enough trouble understanding the tech, now they're going to have to figure out why one tablet sold with Windows will run all their existing Windows programs (though it'll need a mouse and keyboard, but ok, I like those on my Android tablet when running shells, etc), and the one sold next to it will only run brand new stuff you have to buy directly from Microsoft. Should be fun to watch.
Well... here's the thing. ARM PCs running Windows have to include the locked BIOS, with no facility to turn it off. x86 PCs running Windows MAY OPTIONALLY including a setting in the BIOS to disable the secure locked-down boot. But they don't have to.
This really needs to get a grass roots awareness campaign behind it, something big and visible like the way we all shut down the original DivX (bent on replacing DVD with something even more evil) all those years ago. Consumers know so little about PCs, they won't even know the questions to ask when buying new ones unless they're beat over the head with the information.
If you're even slightly serious about photography, no cell phone upgrade will ever be enough. You'll get better photos from a $100 P&S camera than any cell phone.
Cricket and MetroPCS actually do have their own networks. They may roam to one of the others, and if not, the networks are too small to be of value. But not everyone is riding on Sprint, though most of the specialized "carriers" are (Virgin, Boost, etc).
It doesn't even have to be unlimited. I'm happy with my unlimited plan -- I get all the data I've paid for. That works both ways... I get what I need, but I'm not compelled to use up what I don't need, and I'm not paying for unused data.
Moving to these limited plans, though, everything's set up in the carrier's favor. If I buy 2GB, I should expect to get that 2GB... nope, you can use up to 2GB, otherwise you lose it. Imagine if your local gas station charged you for a full tank every time you came to refill, whether you needed it or not. Or your electric company charged for 2000kWhr per month, even if you used only 1000kWhr... and charged you an extra $50 for every 100kWhr over your limit?
In short, the things we're letting the telcos get away with are not acceptable for pretty much any utility. They really need to be shown, economically, that we won't play this game. I certainly will not. A flat rate per MB, even a flat $10 or whatever per GB would be acceptable... it doesn't have to be unlimited. I just shouldn't be paying excessively when I need more in a month, or paying for usused data (within limits... not suggesting they charge by the KB, but they certainly could) when I have lower needs in a month.
They'd probably rethink the plans if every customer had a way to just burn off the excess data they've paid for every month. The telcos like the plans as is because, like most of us, we like it when people just give us money and don't expect anything in return.
Not so much. We have the most radical leftist president that this country has ever seen, supported by a majority in the Senate and not that long ago super majorities in both houses, not to mention a significant portion of the judiciary supported by outright statist revolutionaries
Yes... he's so leftist, he's managed to push through things like the Republican Party's original healthcare plan. And the lowest taxes since the Truman era.
It's sad that the state of education in this country has fallen to such a low level that so many people don't even understand what a "radical leftist" actually would be, they just use the words that Rush Limbaugh taught them to use, without knowing what they mean.
It is the density of towers... but It's not just the towers. AT&T and Verizon both have 850MHz for voice and data, and 700MHz for 4G, which propagate better, not to mention not getting so attenuated by buildings, forests, etc. (AT&T does need 1900MHz for one direction on their 3G connection). Sprint and T-Mo have only the 1900MHz channel for voice and Sprint's 3G. Sprint put WiMax at 2500MHz, which is worse yet... T-Mo's 3G is at 1700MHz and 2100MHz, so less robust. Sprint's putting their LTE at 800MHz, on the old Nextel frequency, so things may eventually get better with them... but that's a couple of years off, I suspect. And data only right now.
AT&T has also had a tower problem in some areas. When Cingular bought AT&T's mobile phone division, they nixed the old DAMPS system and put the whole company on GSM. But DAMPS had better range per cell. So in some areas, you have coverage that's spottier than it was intended to be, simply because of this (I'm sure they filled in extra cells in cities to deal with this, but it's still an issue in rural areas... one of the reasons AT&T drops more calls, the other being issues with the way GSM 2G does cell handoffs).
The real key is that you HAVE to buy the full price phone from Verizon, and they're certainly going to keep those full prices very artificially high. In reality, they don't offer much of a discount over the price a phone would actually sell for in a free market. Look at my Galaxy Nexus. That cost me $299 plus a 2-year contract agreement. Verizon will sell you one for $650 or so off-contract. Google will sell the universal GSM version through the Play Store for $399 (fully supported on both T-Mo and AT&T -- they finally got that right). So that's more or less the real street price you'd pay for these if the whole system wasn't rigged. Verizon and the others are getting these long-term commitments very cheap.
Per GB of total plan availability? Or did you just decide to go with less?
Of course it costs more. Verizon used to charge a flat fee for the "Family" plan, $10 for any device added, and then data based on the device and your requirements. Thus, my smartphone cost me $30 more per month than a dumb phone, and that's unlimited data (still is, as long as they don't just decide to void the contract and kick us to the new plan).
Now, they're charging you twice for the smartphone.... it's $20 or so more than a dumb phone doing exactly the same things. Sure, I might use voice and IM less on a smartphone, but that's absolutely not costing Verizon anything, since all the non-essential services are now unlimited. And I'm paying dramatically more for way less data, on top of the extra fee just to have a smartphone hooked into their system.
In short, they're just gouging smartphone users. No other reason but "we can". I would leave Verizon for Sprint, even with their lesser coverage, if I couldn't keep my current plan. Not even much of a choice.
Yup... the iPhone is their top seller. The iPad may get more attention, though, given that currently, Apple has 15% of the world's smartphone market, but over 50% of the tablet computer market.
I did actually see some clown using an iPad as a camera, a few weeks ago in Yosemite National Park. And while it was probably lighter than my Canon 60D and five lenses, I don't think for a moment it was easier to use. And you'd be way better off using even smartphone as a camera -- the iPad cameras are really meant for other things (augmented reality, video chat calls, etc). They're even worse than the already-pretty-horrible cameras like those of the iPhone.
The phone market is more settled than the tablet market, too. And controlled by powerful cellular telecom companies, whereas tablets are free of that. Same reason Microsoft is gambling their desktop dominance to claim a chunk of the tablet/phone market (and given their recent announcement of having orphaned all Windows 7 Phone users, OS and app wise, it seems to be the table they're most serious about).
Naa... it's the damn photino birds eating up the sun's core.
Actually, I agree with that. Not a huge sports fan, but if there really were some kind of "Trans-human Olympics", which allowed the best combination of athletics and weird science, I'd be more likely to stick around past the opening ceremonies. Better a separate event than just letting it leak in to the regular Olympics. I'd also expect that cloned horse to eventually have bits of tiger or dinosaur DNA... now THAT would be a horse!
I'm sure there are MRI device companies more than happy to take your order.
Machines run between $1-$3million, plus maybe another $500K for the installation site. And they can cost $500K-$1M to run each year.... gotta keep that liquid nitrogen going for the superconducting magnets. The useful life of the typical machine these days is about seven years, though many healthcare companies are using them about twice as long. You know when you're getting treated at such a facility -- the machine's down on a regular basis.
Depends on where you live, I guess. Here in the good old US-of-A, my wife has been in for multiple MRIs and CT scans, treatment for cancer discovered two years ago. In our local (South Jersey) MRI facility, it's at least a week to get an appointment, most of the time. And they do the same thing... X-Ray, then MRI if they think it's needed. And most X-Rays are done at radiation specialty centers -- doctors rarely have X-Ray gear. Dentists, sure, because they're ok with very specific and simple gear. But the current state of the art makes the old family doctor's X-Ray machine a dinosaur.
Well, there's physics and there's physics.
We KNOW that these lower-range Terahertz-band radio waves do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or ionize atoms or molecules, which is the big problem with ionizing radiation such as high frequency UV and X-Rays. But there is some evidence that they may cause damage to DNA via non-linear resonance.
Thing about "completely safe"... it changes as you discover new ways to cause damage.
Most of the Intel GMA series ARE PowerVR cores. Just slighly higher performance versions, not identical to those found on smartphones.
Hell with the fractions. I want one that goes all the way to 11.
Medfield uses the same PowerVR SGX540 found in the TI OMAP 4xxx series, and going back to the original Samsung Galaxy phones. The forthcoming Clover Trail (Atom Z2580) goes to the dual core PowerVR SGX544MP2, for next year's tablets (maybe phones too?), which is basically a Direct3D 9.3 upgrade to the SGX543MP2 in the iPhone/iPad.