It took me a while to realize, but…
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person?
3442 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Looks to me like both sides are bargaining hard for the best they can get. I think Google would do well to remember that in the end Almunia is basically calling the shots. They make him happy, or they are in a world of pain.
I'm guessing that Google really does not want this to get serious, so they'd better make him happy.
Huuh… Not sure what your objection is. Ideally, if Glass shows you the image of an object, there should be no difference at all between the rays of light coming from Glass, and the rays of light coming from a real object say 10 meters away. If you have good eyesight you can see both without trouble.
Now if you have bad eyesight, you have prescription glasses that transform the rays of light coming from any real object 10 meters away so that your eyes can see the object properly. Rays of light coming from Glass should be transformed in exactly the same way, and allow your eye to see properly what Glass is displaying.
Now, there might be a problem if your eyesight is so bad that you cannot see an object 10 meters away even with prescription glasses. You would need to have a special Glass which mimics the rays of light coming from a closer object that you can normally see, maybe 50 centimeters away; but this would probably be very expensive because that would need custom optics inside the Glass instead of the mass-produced ones which mimic objects 10 meters away.
You are missing something: Even people who do not wear glasses cannot focus on something half an inch from their face. The optics inside Glass probably display everything to your eye as if it was a few meters away, so if you can see clearly a few meters away while wearing glasses, you should be fine wearing Glass over your glasses.
I'm curious, what makes you think that "the majority of successful hijacks are probably pulled off by shady state-sponsored types" rather than spammers? Because you hear more about it in the news?
According to my research, only rich people get married and have children. You never hear of these things happening to poor people in the news.
I love Terry Pratchett very much, but… Saying that the Harry Potter series is heavily based on his work is so much of a stretch that you must be very nimble to attempt it. In fact, apart from the fact that magic exists in both worlds, and some very common fantasy elements like "they both contain dragons and trolls at some point or other", I have trouble seeing any kind of resemblance between the two. Or are you talking about the Johnny Maxwell series? "A teenager has strange adventures with his friends" is the only common link I can see, and that's not much either…
All patents are kept secret for one year. If at anytime during that year, somebody else comes up with the same idea/concept, the patent is invalidated as being not novel enough.
When you think about it, the fact that two or more companies would be racing to patent a concept should automatically disqualify the concept from being patented. Patents are meant to reward the inventor who brings something to society. If many inventors come up with the same idea at the same time, then society would have benefited even if any of these guys had decided to go back to bed instead. At the most, the patent should be shared between the multiple inventors, certainly not awarded to the one with the fastest legs.
Seriously, you want a new law just to stop the maybe two guys in the whole state who would be willing to go to all that trouble, when there is an internet full of porn available?
Anyway, isn't it already illegal to peep on people? Why bother with a new law, which will stop people from taking some completely innocent but very cool movies?
This is very much like banning all phone cameras because there are people who will use them to take underskirt pictures in the subway. Let's ban zoom lenses, too.
…Wait, what? The damn car finally runs out of petrol, and he that's when he decides to drive the car off the road? This contradicts the info that he had a full tank of gas. Half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.
Regarding the whole story, I'll misquote Thomas Jefferson and state that I would sooner believe that a French guy would lie than that a car would keep accelerating no matter what the driver did. Brakes, gearbox, ignition keys… There is an awful lot of things that would need to go wrong in exactly the right way for this to happen.
You can dial new numbers, listen to voicemails, see the contacts and the history.
Interestingly, if a contact has a homepage defined, you can normally tap on it and open the browser; but that did not work while using this trick. I assume that you are in a special mode where the phone app works so that you can make emergency phone calls, but nothing else does…
A word of caution: I tried making a phone call, but the results were strange. There was no way to hang up, because the normal buttons would not show up, even after I stopped holding the sleep button. It took me a while to bring it back to a normal state.
I find myself wondering. Android is a very good choice for most manufacturers; they get an OS for free, with a large ecosystem of apps (yeah, yeah, some fragmentation). What would have happened if Android did not exist? Would Symbian be the standard? Would RIM still have 30% market share? Would Microsoft stand a chance? Or maybe Samsung would rule the same way it does now, but with Bada…?
I have to say that as a user, I am still thankful for Android. Even if there is less choice of OS, compatibility is king. I prefer to have a few large dominant OSes than a smattering of incompatible systems. (Typed on iPhone)
I say 45 = 3 x 3 x 5.
It cannot be a power of a prime, and I take this to mean it cannot be a prime itself. Power by one is a power.
It cannot be the product of two primes, so it must be the product of three primes at least.
It cannot be the sum of two primes, so it is not even, because every even number small enough to be tested is the sum of two primes. See Goldbach Conjecture.
So I choose the smallest possible three primes, none of them 2, not all of them equal, which are 3, 3 and 5.
I am excluding zero and negative integers on grounds of not being interesting.
Lack of apps.
The reason they shoehorned the TIFKAM into desktops is that they hope to attract more developers for it. The developers would not bother for their current market share on mobile, and the market share will not improve unless developers write apps. It's a chicken and egg problem, and they are trying to solve it by having their cash cow lay the egg. Er… Yes.
Both, I think. Also, less regulated. Confusion is a form of art when it comes to phone bills in the US; the better to advertise "$50 a month plans" which swell to $90 plans when all fees and taxes are added.
Then again, Americans are used to pay $20 for a $15 item on the menu, unlike Europeans who for some reason expect the price to be exactly as indicated.
How are their space-faring people going to be called??
As everyone knows, Russians are called cosmonauts, Americans are called astronauts, French are called spationauts, and Chinese are called taikonauts. Now we need a word for the Iranians.
Currently, you can get an iPhone 4 for free (well, $1), if you take it with a two-years plan of $60 per month — That is $1440 in total. The phone itself costs about a third of that price. Each month, $40 of what you pay for the plan pays for the actual service, and $20 pays for the phone.
Which means that if you don't get a new phone, you are paying 50% more than what you should. How is this not bundling? Isn't bundling normally illegal?
Imagine if Microsoft suddenly announced that from now on, Windows costs 50% more, but with any purchase of Windows, you get the possibility to buy Word for $1… What are the chances this would fly?? I thought that was exactly what got them in trouble with Internet Explorer…
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019