To me, that doesn't seem to be so much a "rift" as it is that Cyanogen had a couple of players to pick from, and the one they liked best wanted an exclusive arrangement, so the other lost out. Not surprising they'd pick the one with more experience in that market over the one that is just getting started.
With all the constant trouble I, and many others had with the pre order system, I decided to ditch these guys. Their customer service was not great, and to screw up the most basic part of any business (taking peoples money), I decided my best bet was to just get raped by one of the big 4, and buy a contract phone.
Sadly, I was looking forward to this phone for quite a while, but I'm tired of the mistakes and gimmicks for what amounts to last years phone.
Yes it was unfortunate that they had some issues on the payment processing, and it did result in some people getting their phones out of sequence (later purchasers got it shipped before earlier purchasers), and they handled the PR of it pretty badly (posting nothing on facebook/g+/forums etc, and the only info coming out was from an employee posting on reddit).
But even so, the vast majority of people got their phones shipped by the date they were promised. For the most part everyone ended up alright. And I must say, the phone is incredible. Especially the battery life. I've actually made it through 2 whole days without charging, and that even included a bit of actual use. Other phones I've had, even if I never turned the screen on, I'd be lucky to make it 36 hours.
The only thing that has really disappointed me about the phone is the slow-mo video capture (60fps or 120fps). When you turn those on, the video quality becomes terrible. 720p 120fps looks like a really bad 480p video, and 1080p 60fps isn't much better. Some people think there may be a software fix, and I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that even with the reduced resolution, it's just too many frames to push through the video processor and it has to choose a really low bitrate to keep up. The 4k video at 30fps, however, is great. Super high bitrate too (I think my tests came out at something like 60-70 Mpbs).
Even if you didn't get raped elsewhere, I think it was a bad move to bail out on your preorder, but since you also got raped in the process....doubly bad move on your part. You let emotions overrule logic.
I'd personally disagree that its a problem. In fact, one 16x9 still isn't wide enough. Two of them is ideal for me. The main monitor for my coding tool, and the 2nd monitor to have 2 web pages loaded side by side. In my main window, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the width is used for my actual code, and the rest used for other panel (project file list, debug panels, etc). If my 2nd monitor wasn't so wide, I either wouldn't have access to the extra panels, or I'd have to put them across the bottom (negating the advantage of making it taller).
Wrong. Amazon DOES charge the same price for everybody. They did experiment with different prices for different customers a few years back, but they got some bad media attention over it and discontinued it:
No, your local brick and mortar store is at a 15-30% disadvantage simply because they charge a lot more for most things.
It really depends on what you are talking about. Since having kids a few years back, I've been absolutely surprised how, at least 95% of the time, toys are cheaper at the local Toys R Us than they are at amazon or anyplace else online. And that's even if you include sales tax. And that doesn't even include the fact that TRU has 20% off coupons fairly often, and you get a couple % back if you have rewards card, and you can often find TRU gift cards 10-20% off (I don't see the same level of discounts on Amazon gift cards).
The two exceptions I've seen to that (ie: cheaper on amazon):
1) innotab games (which is sort of a toy, though falls more into the electronics category)
2) Thomas the Train wooden train cars
Other than those, I've only found a couple other random items cheaper on amazon. Everything else is cheaper at TRU
'The word "is" denotes the present era.'
Which trivializes the use of "always" by shrinking the timespan, making the claim tautological. No one speaks English that way who is honestly trying to communicate.
Really? I think you might need a better grasp on usage of the word. Go look at the examples on OED, and you will see many example usages (even some from hundreds of years ago) where "always" does not work the way you seem to think it does.
And it is still factually incorrect, since the Apple Watch is shown at the traditional 10:09 time for watch displays.
Well....now that I can't comment on. I'm not an apple fan, and don't pay attention to any of their advertising, so I wouldn't have a clue to the accuracy of the statement. I'm just speaking about the usage of the language in that particular instance, given the info that was presented there.
Right. But the headline said "is always", not "has always been". The word "is" denotes the present era. Currently any time you see it, it is 9:41. So to restate it:
It used to be that every time you saw it, it WAS always set to 9:42, but now, since the introduction of the iPad, it IS always set to 9:41.
A Google website only working with Chrome.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Just absolutely shocked. *LOL*
I know you are trying to be funny, but to be serious, it's not as if this is a common thing for google as far as I'm aware. Google generally is one of the best at making things work cross browser. Usually when it's not, it's because the feature has no equivalent in other browser. Ex: google's desktop notifications or cloud print features...I'm not aware of any other browsers having something equivalent. If someone has a list of things that COULD be don'e across multiple browsers (preferably in a standardized way, but I'd even accept non-standard) and yet google didn't, I'd appreciate seeing it.
BBC basic was interpreted, not compiled (though there may have been compilers written for it since).
It was my original instinct to say the same (since nearly all basic languages are), but I looked it up on wikipedia before posting and found that there was indeed a compiler for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
A Compiler for BBC BASIC V was produced by Paul Fellows, team leader of the Arthur OS development, and published initially by DABS Press.[citation needed] This was able to implement almost all of the language, with the obvious exception of the EVAL function – which inevitably required run-time programmatic interpretation. As evidence of its completeness, it was able to support in-line assembler syntax. The compiler itself was written in BBC BASIC. The compiler (running under the interpreter in the early development stages) was able to compile itself, and versions that were distributed were self-compiled object code.[original research?] Many applications initially written to run under the interpreter benefitted from the performance boost that this gave, putting BBC BASIC on a par with other languages for serious application development.
There's not a whole lot of info about it on wikipedia, and it doesn't even say when it was written (and there are no citations), so I have no idea if it was something recent or very old.
Actually, it is written for resource efficiency...specifically program size, which uses memory. The goal was to write a 1 line program, and in BBC Basic, that meant they were limited to 256 characters. Yes, maybe they could have wrote things with more verbose naming and had it compile to the same size, but the particular goal there was to write something big with little code. I think they accomplished it fairly well, and probably 95% (at least) of programmers would be hard pressed to replicate their results. I suspect the people capable of accomplishing that would be capable of similar accomplishments on an embedded platform, given the necessary experience with the particular hardware.
If anybody wrote code like that for me, they'd be made to sit on the naughty step and think very, very hard about what they'd done.
Unless, of course, you were developing for embedded hardware, where you are trying to do way too many things with way too few resources***. Then you'd give that programmer a promotion.
***Although those days are gradually coming to an end, as even the tiniest systems are getting more and more resources, and eventually they'll all join the rest of us, where readability, verifiability, and maintainability take top priority. But for now, they're not all quite there yet.
Apple clings so much to legacy hardware that the CPU clock speed of their new entry-level Mac mini is nearly the same as a decade ago.
That's not apple. That's the entire CPU industry in general. Clock speed, we are right around where we were a decade ago. And that has nothing to do with clinging, but rather what's realistically possible. CPU speed used to increase rapidly because it was the easy way to increase performance year after year. Then we started getting into diminishing returns....smaller improvements in performance even while power consumption and cooling requirements grew rapidly. So now they've learned they need to focus their improvements on both multi-core design as well as per-clock execution efficiency.
Apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite there. Did I say we've arrived at the panacea? No, I didn't even say anything remotely like that. What I was saying is that it's a lot better than it was before.
And I don't think your math is quite there either. 170 miles * 21 stops = 3570 miles. Over 2 days, that's 1785 miles per day. Even on the summer solstice, you have only 16 hours of daylight (unless you are up in northern canada). So even if we don't count time to eat, use the bathroom, and get gas, you must have been driving 111 MPH continuously. Even if I grant you the hour before sunrise and after sunset, that's still 99 MPH with no stops.
It'll get to that point eventually. Tesla's currently installing superchargers across the country. You can get a half charge in 170 mile charge in 30 minutes (and it's free)
http://www.teslamotors.com/sup...
That's not too bad. Having to stop for 30 minutes every couple hours is a bit less than desirable, but that's a significant improvement. If you plan your bathroom breaks and dinner around charging time, then several of those stops won't be so bad.
No difference from the SSBs, or no difference from the fruit juice?
Neither. Read that sentence again, and I think it's pretty clear they are comparing all 4 to a baseline level (not sure what that is or how they get it). Think of it like:
basline = x
carbonated SSBs = x-1
fruit juice = x + 1
non-carbonated SSBs = x
diet carbonated SSBs = x
And just to be certain I am interpreting it right, I took the 15 seconds (literally, that's how long it took me) that you couldn't to click the link, skim the 1 page summary, and find: "No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length."
Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz
