Re: In our dreams. :)
2349 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
Though it would be lovely. Now where's my tinfoil hat?
....the x86 os of your choice. I think that it is very much to AMD's credit that we could be looking at 10 mill tablets that are "full-song-with-choruses" computers which can run a full productivity os.
.........."FBI nails Verizon over Cisco scam" and I got all excited - damn!
That would depend on what type of ammo you were using. I am sure we can both think of "munitions" (supplied by Q perhaps?) that would have given even his original Baretta a kick like a mule!
..............rather old fashioned reservations about calling somebody a liar in the absence of any solid indication that they are, simply because I want it to be the case. How about you?
We have a fully updated N8 in the house (primarily my good lady's phone although she will sometimes allow me to take some snaps with it :)) and our view after living with it for about eighteen months is "lovely camphone, shame about the os". I know that Symbian has it's supporters/aficionados here at RegHardware but both La Señora and I find it (still after a year and a half) clunky and counter-intuitive. Whatever else one may opine about the "facilities" in the winphone os it is not in any sense difficult to use. If one is a digital photography enthusiast and needs/wants the best camera available (defined here as the one you always have with you) then taking a look at least at the 920 when it's released would certainly IMO be the way to go.
..........there is a certain "balance of power" I can see that it would work well for the individual contractor. However, I would point out that in labour markets where the employers have to upper hand due to market conditions (it does not take very high rates of unemployment to make in an employers market) then life as a "temp" becomes a very different experience. I temped in the eighties - trust me, you would not have wanted that experience. The icon? That "down and out look" was pretty much how I felt at the time.
....nasty looking sucker!
Precisely the point - indeed it is a point that a particular section of Apple's fan-base miss (or at least pretend to). There are of course two different business strategies at work here. When it comes to phones Cupertino specialise (very successfully) in a very limited range - fine, it clearly works for them. Sammy's strategy is somewhat different, "imagine a niche and then fill it". It is fairly ridiculous to compare apples and oranges (no pun intended). People should by all means compare the SGIII and the iPhone5, they are after all direct competitor devices but the rest of Samsung's repertoire in this area has absolutely nothing to do with the f****** iPh******!
Please share with us which equipment you have used since 1995 which had a modern touch screen and a good quality digitizer pen, hmm? We're all agog to know why you think they are such a waste. Surprising as it may seem the equipment has improved quite a bit in the last seventeen years.
Now there's a thought. A modest suggestion for Sammy's next marketing campaign, "so good Apple want it banned".
Indeed, that is precisely what they will likely do. However, that will also result in them placing themselves right in the spotlight, hmm? I agree that Redmond's move will not in and of itself change the situation (in practice) but it does in fact put the cross-hairs in the political sense squarely on the backs of the companies concerned. No, I do not see MS as any big hero here but they have IMO, for whatever reason, made the right move. The reason why these companies are protesting like fuck despite the fact, as has been pointed out, it has no enforceability is precisely because this move by "The Great Satan" has in fact (no doubt for their own reasons) put those buggers right on the spot.
They're opening brothels now?
Where is the expected Elvis-sighting joke then?
What of course we have every reason to fear is that the influence of the large European and American corporations will tend to ensure that we get the worst of all possible worlds.
................I would agree with you - their margins are very thin because the vast majority of such kit is at the low-end and medium-low-end price points. However, the x86 tablets are most unlikely to turn up at those price points any time soon. It is not (from my point of view) first and foremost the price-points concerned, it is what they are willing to supply at those price points that is the question. Judging by what we have seen so far it has been, in relation to what they have been willing to offer, rather shabby. As far as Redmond's influence is concerned I think that can be exaggerated in this context. They do not remotely have the same influence that an original producer/designer like Apple, by definition, has and I do not think that they deserve being excused on those grounds. One of the reasons why Vista (in addition to it's own intrinsic failings which were considerable) ended up selling relatively poorly was word of mouth amongst the punters when they "experienced" the appalling kit that the OEMs released it on - 1Gb RAM anyone? A very large number of those boxes were in practice a fraud perpetrated on the punter given that they were in no way capable of doing very much more than get the os out of bed in the morning. That was most definitely not in Redmond's interests at the time and I do not see how the OEMs can escape their responsibilities for what they did. They are fully capable of being short-sighted and greedy without any help from MS.
""So far, the PC industry has failed to create the kind of buzz and excitement among consumers that is required to propel ultrabooks into the mainstream" said Craig Stice, senior principal analyst".
Well one can certainly see why he is a senior principal analyst (yes, that was irony :)). Indeed, he is a veritable font of wisdom.
"When combined with other factors, including prohibitively high pricing, this means that ultrabook sales will not meet expectations in 2012."
Never mind of course the very mediocre specs that you get for the money. RegHardware's review of the HP Spectre XT for example - magisterially dismissed by the first poster with "1366x768.... next...".
Yet more wisdom.
"especially with fierce competition from new mobile computing gadgets such as the iPhone 5, Kindle Fire HD and forthcoming Microsoft Surface."
The only relevant device here in his list, if we are talking high-end computers (not phones), is the Win 8 Pro version of the "Surface". We note the fact that (according to all the reports at least) it has fine build quality, pretty highly specced and has a high-res screen. If however we look at the various tablet announcements from the OEMs it is not obvious to me that they are going to do any different with their tablet offerings than they have with their ultra-books. Over-priced, underspecced, and soon to be over here - no doubt raising the same kind of yawn that their "thinnies" have been raising. Common factor IMO? The OEMs won't contribute shit to growing a market. They've had two decades or more cruising on the back of Windows doing bugger all other than "banging out boxes" and they see no reason to change their habits now - and absolutely no reason to accept lower margins at the outset to establish a market. I am not surprised that Redmond decided to build "benchmarks" themselves with the two versions of the Surface, they must have strongly suspected what they and we are going to see on the market this Autumn.
I have just noticed that iSuppli have had to downgrade their estimate for ultrabook sales in 2012 by about 50% - I wonder why? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the OEMs selling mediocre kit at premium prices by any chance?
..........nick-name for such a device is a "shiny". It does not mean we want the screen like that! Matt and higher res or go screw is my personal message to the OEMs.
One does have to wonder what the DPP uses for brains these days. This guy, they alleged, deliberately sent this message to his girlfriend and his, mother-in-law, his ageing grandparents (of both genders), likely his father and his mother etc, etc. In other words to "world+plus+wife+dog" within his circle. They could not see that this could not possibly be anything other than a mistake? WTF? One also has to ask what the hell the judge in this case was doing.
If you wish to post an ad hominem attack concerning another poster's intelligence you might at least try spelling his/her handle correctly.
brain-dead chimpazee former president G W Bush said "if you're not with us you're against us". As far as a very particular section of the US body politic is concerned if you do not play ball you are classified as "un-American" or "anti-American" depending on which passport you hold. However, in reality as far as they are concerned this is merely a formal distinction - everybody they don't like is a traitor and should be subject to the "appropriate" penalties.
...........that the assumptions we so often see reported in the press accurately reflect the motivations behind this particular raid.
It is possible that it was straightforward industrial espionage carried out on behalf of a Chinese company operating in the same area. The automatic assumption that if it has anything to do with China then it must be a government-sponsored attack pursuing a cyber-war agenda is nothing more than just that, an assumption. The assumption may indeed sometimes be correct, however it is highly likely that the situation is more complex and varied than tabloid headlines would suggest. However, it is certainly perfectly possible that private criminals might use this information to carry out a "your money or your networks attack" as indicated in the article.
Has this got something to do with delivering the popcorn to both ears at once?
Satellite-dish sellers (regardless of the primary purpose of the dish) have a reputation amongst the general public that is on a par with double-glazing and used car salesmen.
That is the point IMO. We have had those resolution specs as standard for how many years? When we take into account what the OEMs are likely going to charge for these devices there is no excuse for a resolution that was "cutting edge" most of a decade ago. I accept that the resolution is "good enough" in the sense of being usable, but if one is going to persuade punters (enterprise or home retail) that they should be willing to blow the dust off their wallets then the OEMs are going to have to do better than this. I am not surprised that MS decided to "benchmark" the market with their "Surface" devices - they clearly had a gut-feeling with regard to what their "partners" could be expected to produce.
All the usual connectivity etc etc and a powered dock giving no fewer than 4 usb ports. There's a full size usb on the tablet itself and a mini-hdmi. I was getting quite interested and then I saw the screen resolution. Yes, that's right, you guessed it. NFW are they getting a penny piece off of me if the best they can offer is 1366 x 768. Most of the x86 tablets are going to be priced as high-end or medium-high-end kit. Manufacturers who think that they can get away with screens like that at the kind of prices they are likely to be charging can kiss my *******.
.....and you're a Barista? :P
*This icon was selected for the sake of the quotation in the title and the literary reference therein. No sarcasm was intended or deployed during the uploading of this posting.
Thumbs up for the "*Ello, 'Ello" reference.
..............that Redmond has considerable form in this area I have to say that on this occasion I am inclined to agree. Apparently the "fat, sweaty, chair-throwing maniac" (as a certain section of the cognoscenti here affectionately refer to him) contacted the commission personally to assure them that MS were coming in with their hands up and did not dispute that they were in breach. On the basis of the evidence so far it does appear to be a case of "do not ascribe to malice what stupidity can explain" - or at least the cock-ups that a large and fairly bureaucratic organisation can explain.
"If Microsoft cares, though, it should to do more to woo them than merely penning a slightly sarky blog post on a relatively obscure Microsoft web page. "
.................and having read through your article I am obliged to say, "kettle meet pot".
.............within hailing distance of reality (I want to see some kit with this chip in it first) then the "Bay Trail" version which, allegedly, will be coming out towards the end of next year may be very interesting indeed.
I can assure you that I was not suggesting that they were and furthermore my "nerdy fanboy senses" are at all times fully under control. :P
I was referring to the desire of the police to be seen to be doing something when the crime concerned is attracting public attention and (implicitly) how more serious offences don't get the attention they should.
........of their customer base for whom a great deal of the point of the exercise is that everybody should know that they own a product from A Certain Famously Cool Mobile Phone Producer. The fact that after dark in certain areas of the average major city this is equivalent to walking around wearing a large billboard saying "please mug me" does present them with something of a conundrum. I will admit that the mental image of a couple shadowy figures lurking in a doorway watching their mark strolling down the street and the one saying to the other "me first with the barista" is irresistible.
Except where the theft involves serious violence against the owner I would have thought that a major US urban police force might have higher priorities than petty larceny? An example of "PR-policing" from the NYPD perhaps?
That is highly likely IMO. A jury in that situation need to feel that the judge is sympathetic to the highly onerous task they have been faced with. It is of the first importance that the judge makes it clear that he/she not only welcomes such questions from the jury but regards it as part of the jury's job to pose them such that the jury-members feel reassured that the judge is supportive. If they are however drowning in a complex case, are also faced with potential public humiliation at the hands of a "bad tempered beak" and have a saloon bar know-all in the jury room one ends up with the kind of situation one sees here.
My guess is (and I admit it is a guess) that they were so intimidated by the avalanche of evidence and decisions required of them that they were only too grateful that somebody appeared to know what they were doing. It takes some self-confidence to insist on going back into court in order to ask for guidance from the judge - and risk feeling that you have made a complete fool of yourself in a very public fashion, a feeling that is very intimidating for many people when they are being asked to cope with something as complex as the arguments presented at this trial.
It is of course for precisely that reason that jurors in such complex cases are given a very clear instruction which can be roughly summed up as "if you need any guidance on points of/interpretation of the law ask the Judge". It has to be that way because (as you have indicated) it you get a saloon bar loudmouth/fast talker in a complex case where the jury are struggling you end up with this kind of mess. The guy's fearless belief in his own "perspicacity" and "knowledge" are exactly the kind of thing that can totally fuck up any chance of a rational result from a lay jury. His
overweening ignorance remarkable self-confidence led him to utterly disregard the clear promise/oath he had signed as a jury member and the sheer complexity of the trial that the rest of the jury were drowning in led them to accept his dubious leadership when they should (given that they had signed the same promise) have told him to shut the fuck and, if necessary, complained about his behaviour to the Judge.
Hell.I cannot believe it. I've actually upvoted one Barry's posts - I need to lie down.
Once other members of the jury had started to speak in public about the case (as they inevitably would, especially given that the press would certainly be pursuing them for interviews) it did not matter whether he had opened his mouth or not. In fact, once the foreman of the jury had disregarded his oath as a juror within the jury room during the course of the trial in the blatant way that this guy by his own admission did, then the case for ruling a mistrial was always going to become known and Samsung's lawyers would be "on the case" (so to speak :)). The verdict in this trial appears (with the wisdom of hindsight, natch) in practice to have been a ticking bomb ever since it was delivered - the issue now is, in whose backyard the blast craters are going to end up.
""Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it... (I) laid it out for them," he said."
So they had an amateur patent lawyer on the jury who regarded his oath as a juror to be a minor irrelevance - according to the contrast between his signed promise/oath when he became a juror and his own words in the aftermath.
Furthermore, I do not feel that it is going too far to wonder if his experience as a patent holder might perhaps be thought to have had some influence on his attitudes with regard to a US company complaining that a foreign company was ripping them off - particularly such a famous US company as the one involved. Given that he was the foreman of the jury and other jurors have said that he provided them with "guidance" and he has admitted that himself, it is clear that there is a serious risk that he was steering a jury who were virtually drowning in that large and complex trial towards the verdict he preferred.
Thank you - :)
I think that part of the conundrum is explained in this paragraph:
"However, there’s an escape clause at the quantum level: the ions can be given a push with a weak magnetic field, to get them rotating, and since they lose no energy to the outside world, that rotation should continue forever – even, according to research leader Xiang Zhang, after the “heat death” of the universe. And since there is no energy output from the crystal, it doesn’t break the rules to offer a perpetual motion machine."
However, what is not clear to me is how one is meant to "read" this clock. The action in so doing would surely impart energy to the system, a sort of "observer effect"? If by observing one imparts energy to the system is it not then above the zero state referred in the article? It is of course highly likely that I am missing something here because this is not my field. Is there a physicist in the house?
Not unless it wants to be buried at a cross-roads with a stake through its cpu.
Yet dear boy, yet. I foresee a large market in "snide seasons".