There's a heap of manufacturers in China who are making no-name devices. I'm sure one of them would be more than happy to attach themselves to the Nokia name, as it would pull them out of the pit of insignificance, pretty much immediately.
As to your later part of your comment, Nokia really dropped the ball at the start of the smartphone era. They were in a great position, with some solid offerings for the time, but realistically had nothing to offer when the market moved to the 'slate' form factor. Nokia's first slate phone was about 4 years after they were introduced by competitors. Then couple that with some really dud offerings, plagued with hardware issues, by the time their lumia series was released, it was much too late. Their lumia phones, in terms of hardware, have been nothing short of excellent. Windows Phone, has been quite good, but for too long as well, it lacked basic functionality, meanwhile, the great features have gradually been dropped because they were too difficult to maintain, when integrated with the OS.
My gripe with the phone industry now is that flagship phones are going to absurd levels of specmanship. At some point, makers should realise that 1440p displays on a phone is just getting silly. I'd much prefer a ~720p display, for purposes of; it's good enough, and it should use less power, in terms of the display and processing requirements.
Link to Original Source
However, a recently-published PowerPoint presentation from Microsoft sheds some light on the matter, revealing that Windows 10 users can expect to get free upgrades for two to four years, depending on "customer type" — yet another variable.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Not yet. They're going after the most complex problem now. What they could really look at is using large UAV's for air shipped goods in large quantities. The problem is again, reliability in making sure they don't crash and kill people on the ground.
The big advantage of using UAV's in flying is that the can exploit the efficiencies of balancing flight time, altitude and velocity while removing the human constraints. I'm not entirely sure what the optimum can be, but I'm hazarding a guess that flying higher and slower will require less energy to complete the trip. In ordinary piloted flying, well this creates the problem that the altitude means less oxygen, longer flying hours means additional crew for shift rotation which all preclude commercial flights from necessarily doing it. They might not even have to be planes, could very easily be solved with UAV blimps, although I think it's safe to assume that they still won't use hydrogen...
In all my years of shooting training (non military, rather olympic rifle shooting and similar disciplines), there are women who do come in and do rather well, however most often it happens that way if there's someone to set everything up and all they have to do is put a round in and pull the trigger. Obviously there will be exceptions to this. Military trained shooters, at the ordinary level, are usually hopeless at disciplined target shooting. It's fair enough, they're two completely different things, but top notch marksmanship at the ordinary soldier level is not the criteria which good soldiers are measured by, therefore, it's not the only thing they spend time training. However, to relate this to the original topic, my shooting training largely revolves around a couple of things; namely steadiness of hold, and setting up the correct natural point of aim, so that your position aligns with your target as precisely as possible.
A large support won't necessarily train that into someone, what it may do is aid in the mechanics of sighting, which can be elusive for the beginner if they're lumped with all variables at once. However, in my experience, once that has been trained, and it's usually fairly quick, the supports get taken away and the next variables are added to mix everything together. For all intents and purposes, they don't need a robot to do this, they could just place a rifle on a rest and achieve the same thing.
Lastly, there is no definitively correct shooting posture. Everyone is physiologically different, and at elite level shooting, you'd be very hard pressed to find two shooters doing exactly the same thing. At the olympic level, the rifles are very customisable, and everyone adjusts things to suit themselves. This creates a difficult situation in a military context, where firearms are, by design, mass produced and simple in nature, in order to keep costs down and expedite manufacture if the need arises. As a result, they don't have the ability to adjust in many fashions to suit an individuals anatomy. Sometimes, this needs to be compensated for with a shooting technique that can be less than ideal in other circumstances.
Well, the things that I tend to do most often is make my own tools for fairly specific tasks. One of my greatest eureka moments was when I realised that I can 3D print my own tool to open a watch case. It took a few iterations (plastic after all is weak), but I finally hit on something that's reliable enough, and it won't scratch the watch case. This was all because I took it in some years ago for a battery change, and the person kind of made a mess of trying to open it, they bent a strap pin, put tears in the leather strap, and scratched the case back. Fortunately it was my cheap daily watch, but still, I got paranoid after that, and had no intention of going to that person again. Now, I save a few dollars by buying my own batteries, and they're good brand ones too, and use a plastic tool to open the watch. No chance of marking it.
The point isn't so much that 3D printing is awesome, but it's really great when you realise that with this tool (3D printer that is) I can do things which I previously would never do. I'd never consider making a tool before unless it could be made with sheet metal and a hammer and file, and in some ways, the tool I made is better than one I could buy.
I'm still using a T43. Never upgraded because with each subsequent model, the laptops started to lose just about all the features that made thinkpads special, such as the lid latches, thinklight (which shines slightly to the side of the keyboard to light up pperwork you might have next to it), superior keyboard layout. 16:10 resolution is also one thing which is far better than 16:9, certainly when you consider that it's meant to be for 'those who do'.
I remember reading that there was an internal memo in lenovo, one or two years ago, about how they were worried about losing so much of the business market to apple. I can't help but think that they've been losing business sales with the consecutive feature drops. I still find it crazy that they dropped the trackpoint buttons, and glad to see that they brought them back so quickly when they realised that people actually do want buttons. While some aspects of this announcement are interesting, others are a bit too nostalgic. Classic thinkpads have always been function over form, hopefully they don't lose sight of this by adding silly amounts of leds or skimping on quality, furthermore, that colourful thinkpad logo needs a complete rethink, also the renders are missing forward and back keys on the keyboard, that needs to be corrected.
With that said, I definitely need an upgrade, my T43 is quite tired, battery life is poor and I really do want to get something which functions as well, just with modern hardware and excellent battery life. I most certainly get one, more if it's unfortunately a one off model.
Sydney is similar. But the thing is dead reckoning, while not perfect due to cumulative error, will generally be able to resolve changes such as a train accelerating and braking. It would also be relatively straight forward to see that a person is moving along a train corridor, so they could make fairly easy assumptions.
What could potentially break tracking through accelerometer dead reckoning is by moving the phone around in the pocket and changing its orientation. But even that, could be potentially resolved, as I believe all phone accelerometers these days are six axis devices, so they can measure static rotation.
The problems are complex, because no doubt, some people really are quite proud of their contributions, and any editing or wholesale discarding of their work will no doubt be offensive to them. Having read some discussion pages, I could see that some people get really protective of their 'baby'. That means it would be better to be more diplomatic and if someone has made an entry, it would possibly be better to edit or adding to their work rather than rewriting it. But with that said, it's basically sacrificing accuracy and quality in order to keep some insignificant person on the internet, happy, that is unless the person who wants to 'correct' anything is actually making it worse.
Then there are some articles, which I've read, that I know that they really do need a complete rewrite, as the whole structure isn't bad, it's awful, it reads like a below average school research project where everything is just cut and pasted, and absolutely no effort has been made in thinking about the article as a whole. You know there's a problem when you go to an article to get information, and your meager knowledge is sufficient to identify that the content in the article is even worse...
I like using wikipedia as a precursory look into something, but I know full well that controversial topics are usually internet warzones, there's a lot of historical revisionism, various forms of patriotism/nationalism that tries to slant outlooks, there's loads of bias, even on seemingly noncontroversial things, as such, I've seen enough poorly written articles to know that wikipedia needs to be read sceptically. Any student who references wikipedia should be immediately given a 0, as it isn't an authoritative source, but they should also be taught how to verify things, and how to better identify bias or slanted writing and even poor writing, taking into consideration that everyone will still use the site.