Do you drive a Ferrari to go to the corner store? Why not, after all it is MUCH better engineered than a Honda! And bass amps? WTF? With bass you have VERY low frequencies that are frankly a royal bitch to reproduce without distortion, especially 5 strings so my amp is nearly $2000. Would I have bought a cheaper one if it didn't muddy up on the low A note? yes but since it wasn't suitable for purpose I had to go with the more expensive.
But, you could get a bass rig that didn't cost $2k and still would reproduce that 27.5 Hz low A bass note. (And I submit your amp does it fine; but I'll bet quite a bit that the speakers and cabinet don't make it down to the fundamental within -3dBspl. 27 Hz is quite low for musical-instrument speakers and cabinet designs. Most of the people on TalkBass are face-palming stupid, BTW).
And it is THAT, that right there, where you are fucking up. Did you catch it? Suitable for purpose. These folks aren't watching 1080p video, hell they ain't even watching 720 or even 480. They aren't wanting to, in no particular order...watch movies, listen to their album collections, do video conferencing, or play FPS games.
And of course, you have a stranglehold on the App Store sales figures to know that? I submit you are talking out your (b)ass; because, there isn't a day goes by that about another half-dozen games (including some pretty graphics-intensive ones) gets released for iOS. As for the rest, I would imagine that people are using their iPads (and to a lesser extent, because of screen-size) their iPhones/iPod Touches) for a very wide variety of things, from recording (8-track GarageBand on a iPad!!!), to controlling their synth rigs, to writing/drawing/composing, and everything in-between.
So WTF would they need with some over engineered device with power blowing out its ass, when ALL THEY WANT is to check their email and read a book?
Because, obviously, that's not all their doing; since they have a tablet (and the apps) that can actually DO those things.
And this is why I'll be getting me and my GF each one. I have NO desire for an "app store", nor do I want to watch movies or play games on the thing because I have a desktop AND a laptop for that.
You just don't get it, obviously. This is a more portable device than either of those things. A laptop is portable; but is just not the same degree of portable. And you know it, or you wouldn't be getting a tablet of ANY kind for you and your GF.
All I want is a little basic tablet, with plenty of battery and easy to slip in a jacket pocket, so I can check my email or catch up on some light reading while I'm waiting in line somewhere.
Oh, I get it! YOU can't see the need; so therefore, there IS no need. Riiiiight.
So look Mr "Macs for All" (Nice ID BTW, enjoy that nice markup on X86?)
Yes, because it buys me nice engineering to go with it. Which you obviously don't "get" in the computer realm; but curiously DO "get" in the musical-equipment realm (and even when it's nothing more than mystical musician-voodoo "knowledge").
if the latest iShiny floats your boat, although what you are even reading about Android if you are a Mac head I don't know, then I'm happy for you.
I'm here because I was interested in what IS holding Android tablets back. Sounds like there are a LOT of disgruntled Android developers out there, and Google isn't exactly stepping up to the plate to address their concerns. It's just an interesting article. Since I assume you don't do Android development, and could care less about having a tablet that can do more than the basics, why are YOU here?
I hear Ferrari is a nice ride but I don't think it is worth the price premium either.
Me neither. That, and about $180,000 (guessing) is why I don't (and probably never w
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them, but as you are all so quick to point out, *anyone* can just take Android (pre 3.0, which is not suited for small screens anyway) and make their own version. If consumers actually *did* want Android, surely there'd be some demand, right?
It's not 'some limits', it restricts access to the Market. Of course nobody wants Android if they have no apps to run on it. How many would want iOS without the App Store?
The iPhone was a runaway success long before there were apps. And a year before the App Store opened. Same thing with the iPad. Launched with basically zero "native" apps. Why? Because most people that actually touched one, wanted one. Not so much with most Android devices, particularly the suck-ass tablets with asinine, non-usable form-factors (16:9 on a tablet? And people accuse Apple of making a device that is only suitable for consuming media! When was the last time you saw or created a widescreen document?), and their suck-ass UI responsiveness (don't even bother trying to deny that!), non-working ports (Really Motorola: How fucking hard is it to get an SDHC card slot working?), low battery life (don't start talking about third-party power-managment apps: That's a job for the device engineers, not the user), and (wait for it), what few apps there are are a veritable minefield of malware-infested crapola, which the average consumer is quite weary of, and, when faced with their fucking PHONE and tablet having to deal with that too, people just say "Thanks, but no thanks."
And because people are Just Saying No (in a big, big way!) to Android tablets, and because Google is terrible at embedded development, and because the tablet manufacturers (even ones with their own foundries and display production, like Samsung), still can't deliver an equivalent (let alone superior) product ("product" includes both the hardware and the OS) to Apple, I just don't see that situation changing anytime soon. Especially since Apple is not resting on their (well deserved) laurels. Fact is, Apple has a huge lead in the tablet game, and doesn't look like anyone is even visible in their rearview mirror. Not in any real sense.
Well I'd say it is that and also for those that don't feel like spending iOS money on an iPad there are tons of CCC (Cheapo Chinese crap) pads running 2.0 that are a lot cheaper than the Galaxy.
You said it yourself: Cheapo Chinese Crap. And just because you don't care about screwing your customers over with something designed to barely, just barely, make it through its 90-day warranty period, doesn't mean your customers won't remember that, and soon become customers of the Apple Store.
Think about it. if your next bass guitar amp costs as much or more than your next computer or tablet, something's wrong. Because there is a lot more expensive technology in the computing device than in a bass head (even one with a DSP, etc.).
How many are waiting until Google gets it act together with Honeycomb and comes out with Ice Cream Sandwich?
How many just don't have Honeycomb devices?
How many are protesting that there has been no Honeycomb source release by Google?
How many Honeycomb apps were expected?
How many have just decided that Android tablets are DOA, and are developing for iOS instead?
That's not how the iOS one works. It compiles native x86 code to run in the iOS Similator. As a result, the simulator is radically faster than on real hardware (desktop cpu + loads of ram available).
Why can't they do the same for Android?
Because Google has zero experience developing for embedded devices; while Apple has decades, and knows how to do development on its own hardware. Google has none of that experience, and I submit, really doesn't care to.
Google's approach to Android has been to push it out to as many carriers and phone/tablet makers as possible, as fast as possible; so that they would abandon whatever platform/OS they were targeting, and shed their expertise and experience in same. That way, they would be locked-into the Android platform (with the PHBs cheering them on, because they get sucked-in by the "free" (as in beer, not freedom) aspect of Android), and Google would more quickly achieve what everyone agrees is their real goal: Increased Ad Revenue.
Android is ARM-only and as such requires a full-fledged emulation and not some cheap virtualisation to run.
And since Android-phones have more horse-power than, say, the PS2 it really is not trivial to run at an acceptable pace.
This is further complicated by the emulator having not only to emulate the CPU but also the wohle peripherial components in sync.
Android-x86 is not Google-powered but a community patched fork of the most current Android branch.
http://www.android-x86.org/
Google has to stick with the original, but nothing keeps you from running it in Virtualbox
http://www.android-x86.org/documents/virtualboxhowto
(However this virtualized environment is not anything like your phone, so it's not really useful for development purposes)
Our best shot is to hope for someone to design an emulator for phones running on a tabled (would have to be OC'd) like Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1 or on an upcoming ARM-based Android netbook.
Then why isn't this a problem for iOS?
It's almost like Apple had decades of experience in designing emulators for ARM or something.
Oh, wait...
Yes, I know the iOS emulator executes x86 code; but are you actually saying that there is some insurmountable reason that the Android community can't do the same? Afterall, emulators are allowed to be a slightly imperfect clone of the platform they emulate. Happens all the time in the embedded world (or did, before chip makers started putting better debugging features into microcontrollers). And even when the core was native (which it usually was), there was always a thick "errata" document, that explained why A/D peripherals, I/O ports, etc. would act differently than the target, because they were simulated/emulated/faked-out in "discrete" hardware, rather than being on-chip.
When you compile code for the iOS simulator the toolchain generates i386 instructions. That's right, the iOS simulator and apps are x86 code and not ARM. ARM code is generated when you target a device.
Which Google could do, too; that is, if it really cared about developers.
It's almost like, they didn't really care about anything but getting a bunch of carriers locked into their platform, and abandoning their own (or other) efforts...
That is something that in a way surprises me. I mean not to say Google is the greatest ever, but I do expect better from them than putting out such a poor performing emulator. Android itself performs well, their Chrome browser is also known for being speedy, then why can they not get this emulator to work at a decent speed?!
Known issues with emulator performance: Because the Android emulator must simulate the ARM instruction set architecture on your computer, emulator performance is slow. We're working hard to resolve the performance issues and it will improve in future releases.
Not trolling here, honest; but isn't that also what the iOS emulator is doing?
Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone.
Ah, the familiar mating cry of the Android fanboi: "Just you wait!"
Well, we've all been waiting. Where are all the drool-worthy apps? Ya know, the ones that make iPhone users go "Damn! I gotta get me one of those!"
Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.
WTF, over?!?
Wouldn't you rather just, like, USE your phone/tablet, instead of having to do things the engineers of the product should have, like Power Management?
pple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.
Nice revisionist history there, bub.
IBM guarded their technical details (BIOS) every bit as jealously as Apple. However, a bunch of people reverse-engineered those secrets, and as a result, IBM eventually had to leave the personal computer market altogether...
Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface
"Mac desktop interface" and _every_ other desktop interface is a rip off of Xerox desktop from 1960s! Matter of fact, both atknison and jobs dudes had a tour of xerox and they saw the original desktop interface there, and once Atkinson got back, he started to implemented Lisa which was a copy of Xerox desktop.
Xerox also invented the mouse. And bunch of other crap that apple (and everyone else) just ripped off.
I'm sick of stupid apple fanboys claiming that apple invented the wheel and bread slices.
Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.
This meme belongs in the trash with the One-Button Mouse meme.
Apple likes to pull stunts like that: push it's users into tech that's not fully baked yet.
Like what? Honestly, Apple usually gets criticized 'round here for being BEHIND the curve on tech. Now you're saying that they are too far AHEAD of the curve?!?
Also, I really can't think of any technology that they have used that wasn't baked yet. Let's take a trip down memory lane (pun intended):
SCSI. Fully baked.
RS-422. Already an IEEE standard.
ADB. They invented it. Worked perfectly from day one.
Ethernet. Certainly a mature standard by the time Macs had their first AAUI connector dongle.
Analog RGB video. Lots of weird connectors, and a pre I2C monitor identification system. But not really different under the hood.
NuBus. Primarily a TI creature. It was mature, but never caught on widely. This is the closest Apple came to adopting a standard "too early".
USB. Already a languishing standard that the iMac rescued from death.
FireWire. Joint effort of Apple and Sony. Became an important A/V standard. Still is.
IDE. Need I say more?
802.11b/g/n. Already standards ("n" being the exception. But everyone was in on that one).
DVI. Everyone uses it.
DisplayPort. Already a standard when Apple adopted it.
Open Firmware. A standard that the PeeSee makers resisted. But again, Apple didn't invent it; and it had some pretty heavy hitters behind it, too. Worked great from day one.
EFI. A standard that the PeeSee makers and Microsoft initially resisted. But again, Apple didn't invent it.
So, when, pray tell, is it acceptable to YOU to adopt a new technology?
And what was wrong with fiber-optic or the, hell, IDK, over 9000 other connection standards that have already been developed, real-world-tested and debugged, and have cheap, easily produced components?
But oh no, this is Apple.
Bzzt! Wrong again, Chucko!
TB was developed by Intel. Apple just helped out with some specs, like, I would guess, the time-synchronization stuff that will make this rock for A/V applications.
I do not suffer from cluster headaches and can't imagine that I'd want to. If they're difficult to alleviate then I honestly feel sorry for those people and can understand doing whatever it takes to alleviate them or find comfort. Even though I do not suffer from cluster headaches I do think I can empathise with those that do, in a kind of tangential way. I take Venlafaxine (Effexor) 300mg per day. This drug is not addictive apparently (semantic smoke and mirrors I reckon because I cannot cease taking it). Anyway, I do take my dose. The problem is that I have "electric shocks" even if I miss the dose by an hour or so. I also get the "electric shocks" towards the end of every day and the basically incapacitate me. I've seen MANY doctors who don't even believe that they exist. I've even had one psychiatrist suggest that I am schizophrenic and that the "electric shocks" are some kind of delusion. I am not schizophrenic, by the way, and the "electric shocks" are not imagined. The medical profession really starts to need listening to their patients! These shocks that I am talking about are not, currently, measurable so therefore they do not exist according to most "doctors" and psychologists and psychiatrists and researchers that I've spoken to. At the same time the cannot suggest a way to get off the "non-addictive" drug they put me on. Can't get withdrawal symptoms from a non-addictive drug so they label it "discontinuation syndrome". Semantic bullshit in other words.
Anyway, the above relates to TFA because I can't see the medical profession accepting this treatment. Perhaps they don't even believe it exists.
Electric Shocks and Vertigo (and that whole suicidal/homicidal thoughts thing) are well-documented effects of SSRI WITHDRAWAL. I would guess that there is something going on with your Effexor dosage, or the Effexor itself is defective.
Anyway, SSRIs SUCK (and are generally ineffective at treating anything but OCD), and Effexor is one of the suckiest to discontinue. I don't doubt you are having these electric shocks for one second, and anyone in the P-Doc world that does should hand in their Medical License immediately; because they are obviously both arrogant AND ignorant.
Strangely, my migraines go away just by puking ! I induce that by drinking loads & loads of water.
Or, for temporary relief, i just keep walking very briskly inside the house.
Find another way to puke!
Inducing vomiting by drinking tons of water is DANGEROUS and even LIFE-THREATENING!!!
Syrup of Ipecac is the vomit-inducing compound of choice. I think it is available without prescription at your local pharmacy.
Interesting that there appear to be multiple people who say that vomiting alleviates their migraines. I wonder if anyone has actually done a study on this.
Really? My doc prescribed me Fioricet (Same thing, plus caffeine) for my migraines. Doesn't even put a dent in them... Nasty as it is, the best way I've found to deal with them is to lie in a scalding bath until I puke, then immediately take an Aleve liqui-gel.
Oddly, the puking part is not optional for the treatment to work...
Puking causes a gigantic histamine release, which in turn, causes massive vasodilatation. Then Aleve (Naproxen Sodium) works as an anti-inflammatory, which suppresses histamines.
This is kind of odd. I wonder why the histamine cycling is helping. But I would suspect that is what is happening.
Next time, you can try either masturbating until climax (I assume you are not in any kind of a mood for actual sex while having these headaches!), or take a rather large dose of Niacin (which also causes a histamine release), THEN take your Aleve.
Beats puking, and is a lot easier on your brain than driving your core temperature dangerously upward...
> The episode in question in s03e23, titled "The Jerk".
Shouldn't EVERY episode of House be titled "The Jerk"? Or was this referring to someone besides House?
IIRC, the kid with the headaches was actually the jerk. He was a brilliant kid, who happened to have a personality that most persons would call "abrasive".
And according to Dr. Wilson, Dr. House is an ass, not a jerk.
They use ergotamine tartrate for migraines and from ergotamine you can easily derive lysergic acid.. The link is pretty clear...lysergic acid.
On top of this, I think I remember a similar study in "LSD: A Total Study" which was published a LONG time ago. I think they determined that LSD at 1/10th of a psychedelic dosage(about 10 micrograms) would perform as a great analgesic for migraines, and analesics were what Hofmann was looking for originally.
Question: Who can tell me what the "S" in LSD actually stands for?
Difficulty: No search engines... You either know this or you're guessing.
Exactly.
Many, many migraine medicines contain ergot derivatives. Dr. Hofmann and his employer, Sandoz, probably have researched more ergotamine compounds than anyone on the planet. Sandoz also produces other, best-in-class compounds, such as Selegiline, which not only are incredibly effective against Parkinson's, early stages of Alzheimer's, but also seem to have some life-extension properties in humans and other mammals.
As for the "S" in LSD; I've never actually seen an answer for that question. LSD that we all know and love is actually the 25th isomer of d-Lysergic Acid Diethylamine. Beyond that, I am afraid I do not know. (Flies off bridge...)
"There's no technology available for devices that just need a trickle of connectivity over long distance," says On-Ramp's chief technology officer, Ted Myers, who says that with a clear line of sight, On-Ramp's technology can send a signal 45 miles.
That's because the idiots chose the 2.4 GHz ISM band for their carrier frequency. If they had chosen something down closer to the AM broadcast band (but using something more robust than AM, like Spread Spectrum FM), they wouldn't have had line-of-sight requirements. But they WOULD have had FCC Licensing requirements that they obviously wanted to avoid.
in fact TFA said that it could actually still communicate if the signal-to-noise ratio was less than 1.
Yes. Sharp-cutoff bandpass filters, Autocorrelation and chopper-stabilized amplifiers can make it possible to pull signal that is way below the noise level. This is done in certain low-signal-level sensor applications and deep-space communications all the time.
The trick is, it used to call for massively-expensive discrete operational amplifiers. Now, such op-amps can be had for pennies.
You have always been able to trade bandwidth to distance in any radio link. Having said that, there are certainly telemetry and remote-monitoring and control applications aplenty.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you drive a Ferrari to go to the corner store? Why not, after all it is MUCH better engineered than a Honda! And bass amps? WTF? With bass you have VERY low frequencies that are frankly a royal bitch to reproduce without distortion, especially 5 strings so my amp is nearly $2000. Would I have bought a cheaper one if it didn't muddy up on the low A note? yes but since it wasn't suitable for purpose I had to go with the more expensive.
But, you could get a bass rig that didn't cost $2k and still would reproduce that 27.5 Hz low A bass note. (And I submit your amp does it fine; but I'll bet quite a bit that the speakers and cabinet don't make it down to the fundamental within -3dBspl. 27 Hz is quite low for musical-instrument speakers and cabinet designs. Most of the people on TalkBass are face-palming stupid, BTW).
And it is THAT, that right there, where you are fucking up. Did you catch it? Suitable for purpose. These folks aren't watching 1080p video, hell they ain't even watching 720 or even 480. They aren't wanting to, in no particular order...watch movies, listen to their album collections, do video conferencing, or play FPS games.
And of course, you have a stranglehold on the App Store sales figures to know that? I submit you are talking out your (b)ass; because, there isn't a day goes by that about another half-dozen games (including some pretty graphics-intensive ones) gets released for iOS. As for the rest, I would imagine that people are using their iPads (and to a lesser extent, because of screen-size) their iPhones/iPod Touches) for a very wide variety of things, from recording (8-track GarageBand on a iPad!!!), to controlling their synth rigs, to writing/drawing/composing, and everything in-between.
So WTF would they need with some over engineered device with power blowing out its ass, when ALL THEY WANT is to check their email and read a book?
Because, obviously, that's not all their doing; since they have a tablet (and the apps) that can actually DO those things.
And this is why I'll be getting me and my GF each one. I have NO desire for an "app store", nor do I want to watch movies or play games on the thing because I have a desktop AND a laptop for that.
You just don't get it, obviously. This is a more portable device than either of those things. A laptop is portable; but is just not the same degree of portable. And you know it, or you wouldn't be getting a tablet of ANY kind for you and your GF.
All I want is a little basic tablet, with plenty of battery and easy to slip in a jacket pocket, so I can check my email or catch up on some light reading while I'm waiting in line somewhere.
Oh, I get it! YOU can't see the need; so therefore, there IS no need. Riiiiight.
So look Mr "Macs for All" (Nice ID BTW, enjoy that nice markup on X86?)
Yes, because it buys me nice engineering to go with it. Which you obviously don't "get" in the computer realm; but curiously DO "get" in the musical-equipment realm (and even when it's nothing more than mystical musician-voodoo "knowledge").
if the latest iShiny floats your boat, although what you are even reading about Android if you are a Mac head I don't know, then I'm happy for you.
I'm here because I was interested in what IS holding Android tablets back. Sounds like there are a LOT of disgruntled Android developers out there, and Google isn't exactly stepping up to the plate to address their concerns. It's just an interesting article. Since I assume you don't do Android development, and could care less about having a tablet that can do more than the basics, why are YOU here?
I hear Ferrari is a nice ride but I don't think it is worth the price premium either.
Me neither. That, and about $180,000 (guessing) is why I don't (and probably never w
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them, but as you are all so quick to point out, *anyone* can just take Android (pre 3.0, which is not suited for small screens anyway) and make their own version. If consumers actually *did* want Android, surely there'd be some demand, right?
It's not 'some limits', it restricts access to the Market. Of course nobody wants Android if they have no apps to run on it. How many would want iOS without the App Store?
The iPhone was a runaway success long before there were apps. And a year before the App Store opened. Same thing with the iPad. Launched with basically zero "native" apps. Why? Because most people that actually touched one, wanted one. Not so much with most Android devices, particularly the suck-ass tablets with asinine, non-usable form-factors (16:9 on a tablet? And people accuse Apple of making a device that is only suitable for consuming media! When was the last time you saw or created a widescreen document?), and their suck-ass UI responsiveness (don't even bother trying to deny that!), non-working ports (Really Motorola: How fucking hard is it to get an SDHC card slot working?), low battery life (don't start talking about third-party power-managment apps: That's a job for the device engineers, not the user), and (wait for it), what few apps there are are a veritable minefield of malware-infested crapola, which the average consumer is quite weary of, and, when faced with their fucking PHONE and tablet having to deal with that too, people just say "Thanks, but no thanks."
And because people are Just Saying No (in a big, big way!) to Android tablets, and because Google is terrible at embedded development, and because the tablet manufacturers (even ones with their own foundries and display production, like Samsung), still can't deliver an equivalent (let alone superior) product ("product" includes both the hardware and the OS) to Apple, I just don't see that situation changing anytime soon. Especially since Apple is not resting on their (well deserved) laurels. Fact is, Apple has a huge lead in the tablet game, and doesn't look like anyone is even visible in their rearview mirror. Not in any real sense.
Well I'd say it is that and also for those that don't feel like spending iOS money on an iPad there are tons of CCC (Cheapo Chinese crap) pads running 2.0 that are a lot cheaper than the Galaxy.
You said it yourself: Cheapo Chinese Crap. And just because you don't care about screwing your customers over with something designed to barely, just barely, make it through its 90-day warranty period, doesn't mean your customers won't remember that, and soon become customers of the Apple Store.
Think about it. if your next bass guitar amp costs as much or more than your next computer or tablet, something's wrong. Because there is a lot more expensive technology in the computing device than in a bass head (even one with a DSP, etc.).
How many are waiting until Google gets it act together with Honeycomb and comes out with Ice Cream Sandwich? How many just don't have Honeycomb devices? How many are protesting that there has been no Honeycomb source release by Google? How many Honeycomb apps were expected?
How many have just decided that Android tablets are DOA, and are developing for iOS instead?
Just sayin'...
That's not how the iOS one works. It compiles native x86 code to run in the iOS Similator. As a result, the simulator is radically faster than on real hardware (desktop cpu + loads of ram available).
Why can't they do the same for Android?
Because Google has zero experience developing for embedded devices; while Apple has decades, and knows how to do development on its own hardware. Google has none of that experience, and I submit, really doesn't care to.
Google's approach to Android has been to push it out to as many carriers and phone/tablet makers as possible, as fast as possible; so that they would abandon whatever platform/OS they were targeting, and shed their expertise and experience in same. That way, they would be locked-into the Android platform (with the PHBs cheering them on, because they get sucked-in by the "free" (as in beer, not freedom) aspect of Android), and Google would more quickly achieve what everyone agrees is their real goal: Increased Ad Revenue.
Android is ARM-only and as such requires a full-fledged emulation and not some cheap virtualisation to run. And since Android-phones have more horse-power than, say, the PS2 it really is not trivial to run at an acceptable pace. This is further complicated by the emulator having not only to emulate the CPU but also the wohle peripherial components in sync. Android-x86 is not Google-powered but a community patched fork of the most current Android branch. http://www.android-x86.org/ Google has to stick with the original, but nothing keeps you from running it in Virtualbox http://www.android-x86.org/documents/virtualboxhowto (However this virtualized environment is not anything like your phone, so it's not really useful for development purposes) Our best shot is to hope for someone to design an emulator for phones running on a tabled (would have to be OC'd) like Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1 or on an upcoming ARM-based Android netbook.
Then why isn't this a problem for iOS?
It's almost like Apple had decades of experience in designing emulators for ARM or something.
Oh, wait...
Yes, I know the iOS emulator executes x86 code; but are you actually saying that there is some insurmountable reason that the Android community can't do the same? Afterall, emulators are allowed to be a slightly imperfect clone of the platform they emulate. Happens all the time in the embedded world (or did, before chip makers started putting better debugging features into microcontrollers). And even when the core was native (which it usually was), there was always a thick "errata" document, that explained why A/D peripherals, I/O ports, etc. would act differently than the target, because they were simulated/emulated/faked-out in "discrete" hardware, rather than being on-chip.
When you compile code for the iOS simulator the toolchain generates i386 instructions. That's right, the iOS simulator and apps are x86 code and not ARM. ARM code is generated when you target a device.
Which Google could do, too; that is, if it really cared about developers.
It's almost like, they didn't really care about anything but getting a bunch of carriers locked into their platform, and abandoning their own (or other) efforts...
That is something that in a way surprises me. I mean not to say Google is the greatest ever, but I do expect better from them than putting out such a poor performing emulator. Android itself performs well, their Chrome browser is also known for being speedy, then why can they not get this emulator to work at a decent speed?!
From the SDK Tools v9 revision history:
Known issues with emulator performance: Because the Android emulator must simulate the ARM instruction set architecture on your computer, emulator performance is slow. We're working hard to resolve the performance issues and it will improve in future releases.
Not trolling here, honest; but isn't that also what the iOS emulator is doing?
Oh wait. It isn't. It just looks like Google took the stupid way out. Or Apple took the smart way.
Or both.
Apple considers its OSes 'killer apps' in and of themselves and limit themselves accordingly. Over time history has shown that open platforms tend to spur multiple 'killer apps' Tinkerers and garage companies have more access to Android development and that will lead to thousands of niche apps that won't be available on iPhone.
Ah, the familiar mating cry of the Android fanboi: "Just you wait!"
Well, we've all been waiting. Where are all the drool-worthy apps? Ya know, the ones that make iPhone users go "Damn! I gotta get me one of those!"
[crickets]
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin. Which do you think is superior?
Forgetting stock for a moment though, using apps like Juice Defender to manager resource hogs, using a kernel that lets you undervolt and set different power regulators (eg, turn CPU to 100mhz when screen is off, etc) and making sure your application data-sync settings are set to realistic intervals will do magic for your battery life. In Sovie Russia, power manages you.
WTF, over?!?
Wouldn't you rather just, like, USE your phone/tablet, instead of having to do things the engineers of the product should have, like Power Management?
pple lost the original Mac vs PC war at the onset due to control-freak behavior. They guarded their technical details jealously, IBM did not, it became easier to write for IBM hardware, clones began to appear, etc, etc, etc.
Nice revisionist history there, bub.
IBM guarded their technical details (BIOS) every bit as jealously as Apple. However, a bunch of people reverse-engineered those secrets, and as a result, IBM eventually had to leave the personal computer market altogether...
Windows 95 introduced the start menu.
Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface
"Mac desktop interface" and _every_ other desktop interface is a rip off of Xerox desktop from 1960s! Matter of fact, both atknison and jobs dudes had a tour of xerox and they saw the original desktop interface there, and once Atkinson got back, he started to implemented Lisa which was a copy of Xerox desktop.
Xerox also invented the mouse. And bunch of other crap that apple (and everyone else) just ripped off.
I'm sick of stupid apple fanboys claiming that apple invented the wheel and bread slices.
Apple is just another evil corporation run by assholes.
This meme belongs in the trash with the One-Button Mouse meme.
Here's the real scoop; but I doubt if you have the brain cells to care.
Oh, and Xerox did NOT invent the mouse. Douglas Engelbart did.
Windows 95 introduced the start menu.
Which is rip off of the old Apple menu. And Windows 3.1 was a (very ugly) rip off of the original Mac desktop interface
Actually, kind of a cross between the Apple menu and the "Special" menu.
Apple is a pretty hostile IP company
...He typed on his Webkit-powered browser...
Apple likes to pull stunts like that: push it's users into tech that's not fully baked yet.
Like what? Honestly, Apple usually gets criticized 'round here for being BEHIND the curve on tech. Now you're saying that they are too far AHEAD of the curve?!?
:
Also, I really can't think of any technology that they have used that wasn't baked yet. Let's take a trip down memory lane (pun intended)
SCSI. Fully baked.
RS-422. Already an IEEE standard.
ADB. They invented it. Worked perfectly from day one.
Ethernet. Certainly a mature standard by the time Macs had their first AAUI connector dongle.
Analog RGB video. Lots of weird connectors, and a pre I2C monitor identification system. But not really different under the hood.
NuBus. Primarily a TI creature. It was mature, but never caught on widely. This is the closest Apple came to adopting a standard "too early".
USB. Already a languishing standard that the iMac rescued from death.
FireWire. Joint effort of Apple and Sony. Became an important A/V standard. Still is.
IDE. Need I say more?
802.11b/g/n. Already standards ("n" being the exception. But everyone was in on that one).
DVI. Everyone uses it.
DisplayPort. Already a standard when Apple adopted it.
Open Firmware. A standard that the PeeSee makers resisted. But again, Apple didn't invent it; and it had some pretty heavy hitters behind it, too. Worked great from day one.
EFI. A standard that the PeeSee makers and Microsoft initially resisted. But again, Apple didn't invent it.
So, when, pray tell, is it acceptable to YOU to adopt a new technology?
And what was wrong with fiber-optic or the, hell, IDK, over 9000 other connection standards that have already been developed, real-world-tested and debugged, and have cheap, easily produced components?
But oh no, this is Apple.
Bzzt! Wrong again, Chucko! TB was developed by Intel. Apple just helped out with some specs, like, I would guess, the time-synchronization stuff that will make this rock for A/V applications.
I do not suffer from cluster headaches and can't imagine that I'd want to. If they're difficult to alleviate then I honestly feel sorry for those people and can understand doing whatever it takes to alleviate them or find comfort. Even though I do not suffer from cluster headaches I do think I can empathise with those that do, in a kind of tangential way. I take Venlafaxine (Effexor) 300mg per day. This drug is not addictive apparently (semantic smoke and mirrors I reckon because I cannot cease taking it). Anyway, I do take my dose. The problem is that I have "electric shocks" even if I miss the dose by an hour or so. I also get the "electric shocks" towards the end of every day and the basically incapacitate me. I've seen MANY doctors who don't even believe that they exist. I've even had one psychiatrist suggest that I am schizophrenic and that the "electric shocks" are some kind of delusion. I am not schizophrenic, by the way, and the "electric shocks" are not imagined. The medical profession really starts to need listening to their patients! These shocks that I am talking about are not, currently, measurable so therefore they do not exist according to most "doctors" and psychologists and psychiatrists and researchers that I've spoken to. At the same time the cannot suggest a way to get off the "non-addictive" drug they put me on. Can't get withdrawal symptoms from a non-addictive drug so they label it "discontinuation syndrome". Semantic bullshit in other words.
Anyway, the above relates to TFA because I can't see the medical profession accepting this treatment. Perhaps they don't even believe it exists.
Electric Shocks and Vertigo (and that whole suicidal/homicidal thoughts thing) are well-documented effects of SSRI WITHDRAWAL. I would guess that there is something going on with your Effexor dosage, or the Effexor itself is defective.
Anyway, SSRIs SUCK (and are generally ineffective at treating anything but OCD), and Effexor is one of the suckiest to discontinue. I don't doubt you are having these electric shocks for one second, and anyone in the P-Doc world that does should hand in their Medical License immediately; because they are obviously both arrogant AND ignorant.
Strangely, my migraines go away just by puking ! I induce that by drinking loads & loads of water. Or, for temporary relief, i just keep walking very briskly inside the house.
Find another way to puke!
Inducing vomiting by drinking tons of water is DANGEROUS and even LIFE-THREATENING!!!
Syrup of Ipecac is the vomit-inducing compound of choice. I think it is available without prescription at your local pharmacy.
Interesting that there appear to be multiple people who say that vomiting alleviates their migraines. I wonder if anyone has actually done a study on this.
Really? My doc prescribed me Fioricet (Same thing, plus caffeine) for my migraines. Doesn't even put a dent in them... Nasty as it is, the best way I've found to deal with them is to lie in a scalding bath until I puke, then immediately take an Aleve liqui-gel.
Oddly, the puking part is not optional for the treatment to work...
Puking causes a gigantic histamine release, which in turn, causes massive vasodilatation. Then Aleve (Naproxen Sodium) works as an anti-inflammatory, which suppresses histamines.
This is kind of odd. I wonder why the histamine cycling is helping. But I would suspect that is what is happening.
Next time, you can try either masturbating until climax (I assume you are not in any kind of a mood for actual sex while having these headaches!), or take a rather large dose of Niacin (which also causes a histamine release), THEN take your Aleve.
Beats puking, and is a lot easier on your brain than driving your core temperature dangerously upward...
> The episode in question in s03e23, titled "The Jerk".
Shouldn't EVERY episode of House be titled "The Jerk"? Or was this referring to someone besides House?
IIRC, the kid with the headaches was actually the jerk. He was a brilliant kid, who happened to have a personality that most persons would call "abrasive".
And according to Dr. Wilson, Dr. House is an ass, not a jerk.
They use ergotamine tartrate for migraines and from ergotamine you can easily derive lysergic acid.. The link is pretty clear...lysergic acid .
On top of this, I think I remember a similar study in "LSD: A Total Study" which was published a LONG time ago. I think they determined that LSD at 1/10th of a psychedelic dosage(about 10 micrograms) would perform as a great analgesic for migraines, and analesics were what Hofmann was looking for originally.
Question: Who can tell me what the "S" in LSD actually stands for? Difficulty: No search engines... You either know this or you're guessing.
Exactly.
Many, many migraine medicines contain ergot derivatives. Dr. Hofmann and his employer, Sandoz, probably have researched more ergotamine compounds than anyone on the planet. Sandoz also produces other, best-in-class compounds, such as Selegiline, which not only are incredibly effective against Parkinson's, early stages of Alzheimer's, but also seem to have some life-extension properties in humans and other mammals.
As for the "S" in LSD; I've never actually seen an answer for that question. LSD that we all know and love is actually the 25th isomer of d-Lysergic Acid Diethylamine. Beyond that, I am afraid I do not know. (Flies off bridge...)
I hope this isn't another service which may impair other devices working in the 2.4GHz range. That's got to be a strong signal.
Nope. It trades distance for bandwidth in an age-old manner. It's just one of those Radio things that most people never learn or have forgotten.
RTFA:
"There's no technology available for devices that just need a trickle of connectivity over long distance," says On-Ramp's chief technology officer, Ted Myers, who says that with a clear line of sight, On-Ramp's technology can send a signal 45 miles.
That's because the idiots chose the 2.4 GHz ISM band for their carrier frequency. If they had chosen something down closer to the AM broadcast band (but using something more robust than AM, like Spread Spectrum FM), they wouldn't have had line-of-sight requirements. But they WOULD have had FCC Licensing requirements that they obviously wanted to avoid.
in fact TFA said that it could actually still communicate if the signal-to-noise ratio was less than 1.
Yes. Sharp-cutoff bandpass filters, Autocorrelation and chopper-stabilized amplifiers can make it possible to pull signal that is way below the noise level. This is done in certain low-signal-level sensor applications and deep-space communications all the time.
The trick is, it used to call for massively-expensive discrete operational amplifiers. Now, such op-amps can be had for pennies.
This is absolutely nothing new.
You have always been able to trade bandwidth to distance in any radio link. Having said that, there are certainly telemetry and remote-monitoring and control applications aplenty.
But revolutionary, it is not.