Couldn't agree more, Greg, I hate the soft-touch buttons.
It will be a major factor in my next phone purchase (if anyone actually makes a phone that only has physical buttons).
236 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jul 2012
"Bring back keyboards."
I've been a dedicated fan of hardware keyboards on phones but I have to say that some of the soft keyboards now available (notably Apple's on my iPod Touch and SwiftKey Flow on my Android phone) are so good that I would rather have the extra screen space and ditch the physical keys.
Tend to agree that this doesn't look like a sensible product for them but is there a danger of losing their grip on the app market?
There are already plenty of Android TV boxes and if you are Samsung and have an existing investment in Android on the phone side then it might make sense to expand this into another division - if Android became the default option for smart TVs, with TVs still being the default point of interaction with these services for many households, would this be a problem for Apple?
Price is a good point Bertie. Although on the total cost of ownership of a PC a couple of hundred dollars probably wouldn't end up as too significant, particularly if the less crash-prone OS reduced support cossts.
At the back end of things how did it compare with NetWare pricing or even a commercial UNIX ?
Yes, it wasn't beautiful to look at but that could have been fixed easily enough.
It somehow managed to acquire a reputation for being a joke product which was very unfair - a joke project maybe, but the results were good and it ought to have been taken seriously. Couldn't get anywhere I worked
I might dig out the old Warp CDs and see how it goes on a modernish PC (something from the last ten years).
I will then wibble away a weekend playing NetHack or something of course, completely wasting the capabilities of both the PC and the OS but there you go.
At least Apple is successful at the moment* - similarly inflated sums are paid for failure too which is when it really rankles .
-
* Of course the current success may be due to the decisions and actions of his predecessor and Cook himself may be laying the foundations for the ruination of the company; who knows?
"it's not unreasonable to hypothesise that an environment in which literacy and knowledge are more important will put selective pressure on intelligence"
That doesn't fit with any historical human society - literacy goes with wealth, as wealth spreads, literacy rises. The illiterate have always still had babies.
There hasn't been a point at which literacy significantly improved the chance of successful reproduction.
Basic literacy is also not difficult to achieve - it is no reliable indicator of raw brainpower, so even if it was somehow and advantage in becoming an ancestor that wouldn't select for the higher ends of human intelligence.
Right - I haven't seen this anywhere else either.
I'm very disappointed that the BBC has acted in this way and been supported in doing so.
"widespread disquiet from supporters of the BBC about the disparity between its declarations of intent on transparency, and the reality" is right.
I do think Montford's guide to this ought to be available free of charge BTW.
In the case of the BBC this is to (in theory at least) prevent it from being an organ of the state - if it is not 'private' it can't so easily be impartial.
How successful any of this is can be debated at length but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the basic idea of a publicly funded broadcaster that has its own independence.
I'd rather have the BBC than not, although the matters discussed in this article are deeply troubling.
If the Register was writing reviews for my mum and sending me elsewhere for the geeky stuff it would be barking, and not up the right tree either.
Should be perfectly possible to do a review of the product as presented (including useful technical details which seem to have been omitted - where was the battery life test? Can we have a little more about the screen than "The display is beautiful"?) and then go on to examine it with a Reg readerly eye.
The reviewer "spent the night discovering what [ he ] couldn't do with it" but why not spend the morning discovering what one can? I don't mind waiting until the afternoon for the review.
"OK, perhaps I could break down the Fire's defences with SDKs and sideloading tricks but why should I? "
Because that would be fun and interesting and the first thing that most readers of this site would do?
I can't be alone in thinking that this might just be a cheap bundle of useful parts on which I could run software that suited my own purpose - so why not give that a go in a Reg review?
Has anyone here done this? How did it go?
" the review is clearly intended to be provocative to help page clicks..."
That's what I assumed - the reviewer is clearly an Apple devotee so we have a "Hooray it is a little iPad!" review which I am sure is useful to some but is bound to get up the noses of a lot of regular commentards.
I've got (but no longer really use) a 17" Dell Vostro that runs, well, not sure about Crysis but it's fine with Far Cry which was the graphical tour de force of its day.
No problems with over heating unless you put the laptop on any soft surface like, um, a lap. Or a bed or a cushion or any of the other things you night quite often use around the house.
The cooling intake is on the base and blocks easily at which point the fans start whining and the 6800M will eventually start going haywire. On a table or a rigid laptop support it is fine.
My next gaming laptop will be Alienware. I currently have an Asus G74SX-91131Z which has all the necessary power (including for 3D, gimmick though that may be) but it has broken headphone and USB ports where I've been slightly careless with mouse and headphones left in and stressed. The Dell never suffered in the same way despite the same treatment and if Alienware are as bombproof as the article suggests it seems that is what I need.
That the sheer number of complaints from users demanding that the browser choice annoyance was reinstated didn't spur both Microsoft and the EU into swift action.
-
Still, as you say they were supposed to do something, didn't do it for whatever reason and so will face some sort of penalty as a result, even if no one really cared.
Were there any more of these?
Watson: 1 Across. A simple source of citrus fruit, 1, 5, 4.
Holmes: A lemon tree, my dear Watson.
Watson: 2 Down. Conservative pays ex-wife maintenance. 7, 5.
Holmes: Alimony...alimony Tory, my dear Watson.
Watson: 2 Down. Southern California style. 1, 2, 8.
Holmes: A la Monterrey, my dear Watson.
Watson: 4 Down. Burglar's entrance
Holmes: Alarm entry, my dear Watson
Watson: That's rather poor, isn't it, Holmes? Right. One to go. A kind of fish with a sting in its tail.
Holmes: Yellow manta ray, my dear Watson
And salt marshes make for very tasty sheep.
-
Good news that this CO2 / sea level model can be trusted unlike all those nasty old model which predict unpleasant things sooner.
"If you have content that nobody else does[1], I'll purchase a subscription to your "magazine".
[1] Hint: You don't. Nobody does."
Well, they do, of course. I imagine you don't have the opportunity to read that newspaper so you ignorance is understandable.
Some of it is even worse reading.
So I think you are right (by accident) in this case - the money is there and the will to spend is there but there's no desire to fund the existence of the institution as a whole.
I buy a weekend newspaper and enough parts of it are of value to me that I consider the price of the whole worth paying.
However I would much prefer a tailored version that omitted the majority of the newspaper that does not get read.
Online systems allow this, of course, and if there was a suitable micropayment process would fund those parts of the organisation that enough people considered worth reading.
The Reg makes a perfectly valid point that it deserves funding at least as much as any other commercial information / opinion provider and if there was some way of funding this fairly I'd be all for it.
"ITV is free, BBC isn't. Both have funding mechanisms, but I can avoid that for ITV if I so wish."
I realise this is something of a digression but this statement really is not true.
The cost of the advertising is paid by the consumer of the advertised item or service.
So even if you eschew television altogether (and stop paying the licence fee) you'd still be funding ITV assuming you drive a car, shop in a supermarket, heat your home with gas or main electricity etc