And also Star Trek has far better brand recognition than Knight Rider, especially among 20somethings (and as everyone knows, us 20somethings are all that matters)
I was kind of hoping Google wouldn't try and jump on the Siri bandwagon; everyone I know who has a new iPhone used Siri a few times at first for the novelty and then realized it wasn't really very practical at all. I wish Google would allocate these resources towards making something new and interesting rather than just ripping off unnecessary competitor features.
My experience with interface is the reverse; I struggle to get iOS to do what I want, while Android makes perfect sense to me and operates smooth as a whistle (smoother, since whistles have little holes in them to make the sounds). This leads me to believe that as far as the interface of the two goes, it really is just personal preference and what you're used to, rather than a clear-cut "one is definitively better than the other" situation.
I would assume it's like the steam sales, where the dev agrees to sell their app for crazy cheap (because a download doesn't cost them any money) and the number of sales explodes so they end up making more money.
Have they explained in Star Wars canon how hyperspace works? If it's fifth dimension space folding, maybe the Falcon was able to fold space such that the Kessel Run was reduced to 12 parsecs, which were then traveled at near light speed, whereas when other ships do it they are not as efficient at folding space and thus have to travel a further distance at the same cap speed?
Or maybe I should stop throwing ideas off the top of my head.
"Apple being first with a checkbook" IS Apple's brilliance.
It is true that driving games gain some benefit from tilt steering (provided the tilt sensors are accurate and responsive enough, of course... the pre-motion plus wiimote was not sufficient) but having tried to play some driving games on my phone I have determined that it really doesn't work for me to be tilting the screen I'm playing on. I've only seen one game turn the view the opposite direction such that what I'm seeing stays level, but even then I'd prefer a separate controller to turn and a screen that stays put.
And yes, considering that Apple has effectively started a war on buttons, I think it's safe to say that they won't be releasing anything with buttons and thumbsticks built in any time soon.
Except the controls are always in the way of what you're trying to see, as are your fingers, so you're pretty much limited to the bottom two corners. And there's no way to feel the buttons, so you can't see what you're hitting while your fingers are covering them up. Onscreen controls are not remotely viable for anything other than very casual games.
Ah, but I disagree- clearly patents are granted based on the results of popularity contests, we're posting in the discussion for an article about exactly that happening.
Huh, you're right, it is kind of annoying how Safari leaves borders on either side. And it assumes I won't be going to any webpages wider than the one I'm on when I press the button.
Safari does make a decent Firefox downloader, though. Better than IE, at any rate.
No maximized state whatsoever? I'm confused. What do you call it when the window fills the whole screen? There's even a fullscreen mode, where programs (mostly games) can fill the whole screen (no menu bar, and covering the dock even if it's set not to hide)
Just offhand, some apps I use that fill the whole screen when I press the green plus button are Photoshop, Firefox, Chrome, and Blender (which can also go into fullscreen, since it's not designed to use the static menu bar and thus that would be wasted space).
I'm curious where one might find that (+) button? The button marked with a plus on the top left of a window is a plain old maximize button in every program I've stumbled across. Admittedly I've only been using macs since OS 9.
I'm suspicious this is a hoax (after all, doesn't the iPad's screen detect capacitance- not visuals like patterns and shapes?)
I'm glad you took my question at face value, instead of seeing the point I was making. Yes, technically if someone were to cover the entirety of the planet's surface with solar panels (of course ignoring the fact that there's nowhere near enough resources, manpower, or time in a person's life to actually accomplish such a feat) then most of the sun's energy would not reach the surface (I'm sure a little of the warmth the panels soaked up would reach the surface via heat transfer) but no country, or even every country combined together, could actually pull that off.
Likewise, the amount of wind turbines required to sap all the wind energy from the atmosphere would be staggering, and you couldn't just put them on the surface, you'd have to stack them so they reached the higher levels- the atmosphere's moving around up there, too- and you'd have to pack them densely enough that no air could get past any blades.
I would hope you don't actually consider either of these things to be even remotely feasible, even if they are theoretically possible.
See, saying QED after a post really just doesn't make you sound any smarter at all. It tends to have quite the reverse effect.