Canada has only 3 large telco companies, and they all work together. they do wonderful free market things like raise their prices simultanously last week..
Jeffery Church from University of Alberta seems to have taken a pro-incumbent stance in his research. he has been presenting this research at conferences indicating canada's incumbents are playing fair. read the paper here. he's also been busily writing pro-incumbent columns for the National Post.
Dwayne Winseck from Carleton University has been calling bullshit on this bought research, and you can hear his criticism of the paper and the comm industry on his CanadaLand podcast interview.
So if we can get this thread out of the Firehose, I was thinking that, as the 10th arrives for us in our respective locations, we could leave here what may be our final farewells to Slashdot.
Until Midnight, this is our meeting place, our City Hall, our town square.
(and yes, our playground)
After that I'm not sure where we can congregate to discuss how the Slashcott's going and whether it's time to move on.
I'm going to jump the gun and lay claim to "So long and thanks for all the Karma", and perhaps someone could do a Bob Hope and re-write the lyrics to "Thanks for the Memories".
In the meantime, a bit of housekeeping.
An AC beat me to the week-long boycott idea by a couple of hours, and suggested the date range of the 10th through the 17th.
As part of a group of people familiar with the concept of beginning a count with 0 instead of 1, I really should have spotted the mistake of putting 8 days into that particular week.
So, should Slashcott Week end as the 17th begins, or do we give Dice a bonus day?
"Well, I was chasing the suspect and my Google Glass fell off, so I don't have footage of the event. I have NO idea how he fell down and broke both arms, both legs (multiple fractures each), and caved his own skull in so he can't testify...err...caved his own skull in..."
sounds like the slashdot beta experience.
Fry: Oh. What's it called now?
Maybe Princeton shouldn't be in the business of playing gatekeeper to a dead man's paranoiac death wishes about publication.
what.cd admins took down the file out of respect to the author as well. Princeton's not the only gatekeeper in this story.
expect appeals for years to come.
The design is OBVIOUS.
this argument is invalidated by Samsung successfully carving niches for a 5" note, a 7" tablet, and phones with wider and taller screens than the iphone's. the iphone itself has also grown an extra row of icons in height. there are criteria regarding screen size selection that have outgrown the original 'human hand' argument.
Rounded edges. Wow. Not having rounded edges are uncomfortable in your pocket. Oblong, well oval or round phones are not comfortable in your pocket either and you'd also like something that doesn't use more space other than to house the required components, of which the size of the touch screen is probably the most important factor.
I too, have 20/20 hindsight. You also focus on the hardware design, and fail to acknowledge the blatant copying of the the IOS look and feel. it wasn't accidental, there are 132 pages which look at every aspect of the iphone with the intention to copy software features wholesale.
Most people handed the same components would come up with the same generic design.
This is precisely the argument, except the components were proprietary at the time. During the development of the phones in dispute, Samsung was responsible for mfg. parts for the iphone and ipad, including screen. of course they would have intimate access to the components ahead of the competition, which is how apple stays ahead. Samsung abused their agreements with apple, and were given an unfair competitive advantage./p