iPhone 2G, lasts me 12 hours full use or 4 days stand by (2 days average) - still use it btw with new battery
iPhone 4 lasted me (now my wife) about 8 to 9 hours and a day and a half of light use
iPhone 4S with most battery hungry functions (eg. GPS, notifications) lasts me 6 hours of constant use, or 22 to 26 hours of light use

Now the 4S is in the brink of being unacceptable. It's still convenient and the extra speed is very appreciated. But I always need a power outlet nearby when traveling, and I cannot count on it lasting a full day. It just can't if used for browsing and apps for a couple of hours.

Now, I love the iPad 2 battery life. Puts it in the Awesome Stuff list. I am guaranteed it'll last a day. If they could have kept the 2G life and not up CPU I'd have been more interested in the iPhone 5.

So an entry about poems, should lust list the rules, and be done. Actually, a lot of knowledge is contained in the examples, the reason why the concept was needed, how it evolved, and ways to make the concept clear to one that isn't in the field but is generally smart. If you ARE in the field, you likely have specialized books. I don't go to Wikipedia for economic or finance related issues. I got to books that I trust and are solid.

So...I don't agree. Math in wikipedia is useless to me. I don't go to wikipedia to understand any math problem, concept or proof. But I go there for almost anything else as one quick reference. For math, as a non-mathematician, I may go to some of the sites that focus on making concepts useful, comprehensible as well as accurate.

You may have replied to the wrong posts. I talk about rejected evidence that the jury never got to see, not about any bans.

Apple draw what a Sony engineer described. it was minimalistic. There aren't many forms of minimalistic shapes for phones that have always been rectangular with rounded corners, on 99.9999% of cases. just as a TV, or a frame, and with lots of prior art, a minimalistic phone would be as the Sony engineer described. Don't forget your idol words: "Good artists copy, great artists steal". The court agrees, and allegedly Samsung copied, whereas Apple stole, making the evidence for a $1000000000 trial inadmissible. Lucy Bit** Also hates her ancestors as much as she hates consumers, and need to be slapp** in the *****.

Also, average salary in Mexico is closer to $10,000 and in India $1,000. Kind of different while you may consider Mexico "like India" the moment you reread what I wrote should make you reconsider.

Mexican food is high on black and brown beans, and these require bacteria to break the sugar. But Mexico City is a Valley (pollution stays there longer) and very poluted, and with huge traffic problems, so an air car would be a god send for air quality (as electricity is produced elsewhere).

Don't doubt it. If I sell something worth $5 for $1, it's guaranteed that I lost $4 and the buyer earned $4, since in the Knight case, that something remained at $5 once people figured out nothing had changed. Moreover, when you earn your salary, you are not creating money. Your employer (or your client) is trading your time for money - for exactly how valuable your work is. If you get paid more, you likely are providing more value or being more productive. Microsoft is no different. They did good choices, and capture revenue from companies and individuals that traded their salary/revenue for Software. Again, money traded hands. The only measure of wealth creation is the real NDP (cousin to real GDP). It means there are more people producing, that people are more productive, or a combination. In the mortgage fiasco, housing skyrocketed. But again, no "money" was created. You can decide your cat is worth $1 billion dollars. And if your neighborhood and everyone you know believes it's a fair price, you'd be a millionaire. But if you find a buyer, you'd have 1 billion, and the buyer will have a dog worth $200, and he'd have lost $1 billion - $200. Again, money traded hands.Bubbles like prime crisis happen to bad causes: there are big commissions, bonuses, and a sense of wealth. But it's just trading.

Now, if we all suddenly agree each tree is worth a billion bucks. Did we just create money? Not really. We just created the illusion of wealth. If you buy a tree and spend $1 billion, you'd have a tree and a paper that says "paid $1 billion". But again, you'd have only traded your $1 billion for a tree. And the illusion can last for as long as the belief is sustained.

You are always trading money for things, and vice versa. And Kight transferred $440 in profits to savvy buyers/sellers.

In the past, in fertile land, men truly worked during 7 or 8 months a year and only during peak seasonal work was work really hard. I know this because my grandfather could spend 4 to 5 months doing whatever he wanted. Today, because of "productivity", you need to work 10 hours a day. The cost of land perfectly is determined by the max productivity of that land. And taxes in many ways also force you to match average productivity. Where I live I pay like $9000 a year in propert taxes. And everthing is 75 more expensive due to sales tax. Not to mention all the other taxes and myriad of things you need to pay just to get even with life, after what comes eating, clothing, etc). So, today, if you want to live a farm style, you better prepare for hard work. Same with everything. Malthus underestimated "pruductivity" but wasn't stupid regarding the bronce law of salaries.

I know little about HFT, HFQ or HFW(hatever). But if an algorithm is many a company worth $5 dollars $1 dollar, it's based on a future dividend pay. So the computer is gifting you privilege to pay $1 for a return that should have cost you $5. Assume the opposite scenario, where it should be woth $5 and and it went to $10. Now suppose you own the stock, which will have a return double of what it should have. (now you need $2 for every %dividend that it shields). So you can sell for $10 what truly was worth only $5. Now suppose you don't own the stock and it's just making its price inflated, Buy a put at $7 with a 6 month expiration and way. But that wont likely happen, they company would sell it's own stock, as would anyone that saw that their $5 turned $10 undeservedly. Or the company itself would float more shares (but who'd buy that). Getting $10 for something worth $5 is good business regardless of who cashes it. And doesn't last long because no HFT or hedge fund would survive by doing that.

Another different thing is naked short selling. I think it should be banned (if it's not done already) Actually, any short selling should be banned (as I understand it). Basically, it can enforce a lower price by generating bearish pressure for a sustained time, until actorrs convince themselves the market knows best. Since the company may have their cost of capital affected by their stock value, it can create situation where the company profitability, market credibility, bargaining power and overall brand may be affected in real life, just because of the short selling effect. This is unethical, wrong and dangerous.

A analogy, suppose you sell lemons, and that after a day, they expire (no longer fresh). You go to the market and offer them for the fair price of $5. No a short seller has this awesome idea of selling lemons they don't have -with the promise to deliver them later, for the exact quantity that you brought to market that day. You had 50 lemons. And the short seller offers $4 for 50 lemons, exhausting demand. The lemon seller will wait until the end of the day, and realize there's not market at $5. Nor $4. Nor $1. And a mistery shopper now offers $0.5 for 50 lemons. The short seller gets the lemon for $0.5, and deliver them for $4 with amazing margin. The one that harvested the lemons gets a huge loss.

This happens to company that typically fond themselves needing to repay debt. If their stock falls significantly (eg. short selling), then a lot of shareholder value is lost because they must issue much more (bringing the price further down). After this is done, it's only been a transfer to the short seller with no additional function or value to the market. A pure brute force game on trading what you don't and have never owned.

Can yu explain a bit or point to a source on how all this works? I literally hate it when options are 20% apart on the bid ask. I can't make a good investment with that spread factored in. It's worst that playing bingo. So if HFT heps narrow the bid/ask then for me it's great. But I don't see what's their gain yet, or how they affect the market.

It could improve, but this hasn't been the norm. Notice it's not an App issue, but a hardware+OS issue. Even Google acknowledges that and ICS Nexus 7 may be the first tablet to deal with the issue. And this is just a work in progress. A test of 5 different low latency apps still show it not ready, but significantly improved.

Now, I do wish the best for Android. I am starting to get so disgusted at Apple since the Samsung trial. It's it becoming a monster company.

The writer of Jasuto Pro also complained about the latency in Android and that there was nothing to be done about it (happened at the OS level).

Maybe there is something more into play. If Netflix is seen in 27 million households now (that an immense market penetration), they become a monopsony. If Disney has this awesome movie, we'll ...it must be awesome...and if they don't sell it toNexflix, maybe I'll buy it. But for all the crap they put, and most of the crap others put, you are either on Nextflix or dead. I can't imagine your satisfaction when you pay $5 to stream bad movies. Two mistakes a months pays your Netflix.

What Netflix is lacking is more money. I'd gladly pay what I pay for DVD to increase selection by 50%. The crucial mistake Netflix did is to make the Streaming version a buffet. If people where happy with 2 at a time, or 3 at a time, or 1, that mean you could see maybe 6 to 18 movies a month. So why isn't streaming like that? 2 a week, 4 a week, 6 a week and 10 per week + an unlimited number of "prime-like", cult, cartoon, non-blockbuster movies to fill in, and TV series. That way, Netflix could agree to be a "collecting agent" to movie studios paying in proportion to viewership, JUST like Apple does for music. What they'd do for us is: negotiate a very fair price, provide content in a very convenient way, simply the movie/tv experience drastically, (finally) get rid of the largest productivity and joy killer i the world - ads.

why not a bid system? if you invent something easy to copy, BEFORE being granted a patetent, you should ask the population how much they would be willing to issue a patent, and what are the approved tariffs. if the requestor and public interest (offer) do not match, then you'd have to do away with the patent...sorry. they'd either have to ask reasonable fees or use contract law (not sell it to anyone unless they enter a contract).. if you can make the same product without ever looking at the product, ie by just thinking "how would would implement a wipe-to unlock mechanism to unlock a phone using a multitouch phone", you should be ok. companies would have no use for good ideas that are trivial to resolve, which are the main damage done to society by patents today (things as scary and ridiculous as the 1-click patent, or swipe to unlock).

This is one of those ideas that seem plausibly correct, to be actually complete wrong. The packaging likely costs Apple $1 or less. and a perfect condition box (original) can sell on ebay for $10 to 30. The box actually make the product cheaper (just sell the box) between $9 to 29.