If you have an iPhone you can get the authenticator for free as an app, and they have said they would like to bring it to more platforms in the future (presumably android, blackberry, minmo and the other major smartphone os's).
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The Eee PC showed that there was a market for small, cheap computers (netbooks). I would be hesitant to say Asus invented the netbook with the Eee PC (mostly because of the XO children's laptop), but I don't think it would be totally wrong to say so either. They sold beyond anyones wildest expectations then, and continue to do so today, likely singlehandedly making the difference between unrecoverable losses and bare minimum survival revenue for some computer manufacturers in the current world economy. It basically spawned an entire processor line within Intel (Atom). No doubt it belongs on the list in my mind.
Android on the other hand is just: 1. Google positioning itself to ensure it will not be locked out of the smartphone/mobile ad space, and 2: Setting the bare minimum baseline for what a smartphone OS can be while still being able to compete in the market. Compared to the multitude of other smartphone platforms it has been pretty non-notable technologically in every aspect *but* its availability to manufacturers and users.
who would want a partially charged battery when the power goes out for 3 days in the dead of winter?
I would, since the status quo is no battery at all.
The cool kids on the block already have natural gas generators hooked up to their houses in the case of power outage, and I would guess that a natural gas generator would last significantly longer at a significantly lower TCO than any currently available battery technology (when at the scale of powering a house).
Those already exist, just google "belgium cows".
Conceptually the thing as the kid, cows born without the gene so they basically are giant masses of muscle.
I was always a bit skeptical. How can you create electronic music, digitally, on computers etc and then claim that putting them on vinyl somehow magically improves the quality?
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
Vinyl tends to be mastered better, where 95% of "better" simply means that it is not digitally manipulated to be louder.
You would need a good sound system, a good ear, and some specific songs/soundbytes to be able to get any statistical significance of perceived quality in a double blind vinyl vs 128 kbps AAC test, and 99% of what doesn't sound the same could probably be fixed by upping that number to 160-192 kbps (LAME and the like are overkill for listening, might be appropriate for a digital backup, but I've never read of any legit scientific test showing any sort of statistical significance in favor of lossless to justify using it for everything).
You would be better off spending money on better speakers rather than on vinyls and a player anyday, unless you are into that whole cover art romantic aspect of them.
People do NOT walk around the world indiscriminately. They avoid bad neighborhoods, treat suspicious people like aliens, profile people in any way possible, and then react. Take a white male and walk them around times square, then a full body tattooed, gauged ear, sub-dermal implanted carnival exhibit and walk them through the same area and watch the difference in how people react. They may be the nicest person in the world but the women will still hug their purses and the men will lower their heads. Ever heard "Don't look at anybody on the subway/bus/EL/whatever"? It's because people acknowledge that there are mouthbreathing retards that will fuck you up because you looked at them funny or because they like your briefcase.
People DO interact with the internet indiscriminately. Most can't tell a good site from a bad site, don't know the difference between a "funnycats.avi" and "funnycats.avi.exe", blah blah blah blah blah. Chances are if you are reading this you have fixed someone's computer because of this haphazard e-disregard, so I don't need to tell you that most people just don't get safe browsing practices.
This guys issue is that there is a select, very vocal group of people who think they are safe on the net but aren't, so he wrote a proof-of-concept to show them that it doesn't matter what platform you are on, there is no replacement for safe browsing practices (and not using default passwords, and and and and and...).
^ this guy disagree's, saying the transition will come as early as 2013-2014 (five years from march 2008) for 2.5" drives.
Seriously, this is the stupidest fucking story I've ever read. AT&T oversold their infrastructure, and now they have three choices:
1: Do nothing, lose customers due to poor service. This is the worst idea, bad both long term and short term.
2: Raise prices to drive down demand like this schmuck suggests, lose customers. This is a bad idea, you increase revenues short term maybe, but lower revenues in the long term.
3: Invest in more towers, bigger backends, thicker tubes, etc. "Lock in" customers not just with exclusive contracts with manufacturers but instead with a combination of exclusive contracts AND quality service. That would make a lot of happy customers, and though the initial investment would likely be many billions of dollars, happy customers are worth at least as much.
Looking at the eassy provided in the last link i can only think to myself "geez i'm glad i didn't have to write bullshit like that to get into my university".
The world I come from is full of oak trees and rain, warm cats on cold nights, and raucous college parties across the street. The sky over my home matches the grey in my eyes; the barbed wire fence around Lake Sequoyah is commemorated eternally by the disfiguration of my left hip.
Am i the only one who puked at that?
Besides, its easy to make up a bunch of horseshit like what that girl wrote if you've got forever to say it. It's much harder to make up clear quick and concise horseshit.
It's been my experience using Safari on OS X that Safari performs terribly if you are doing any sort of hard drive I/O, meaning if it is all that you are using, it's going to keep your HDD awake doing god knows what the whole time you're using it. Doing something simple like opening a new tab when logging into WoW takes forever and it's basically the reason why Chrome for mac can't come out soon enough. I'd love to see a similar comparison featuring FF, Chrome, Safari, and Opera on OS X to see if the results are similar.
To add to your comment, you can customize to any point in the songs by right clicking them in itunes, selecting get info, going to the options tab, and setting the start and stop time to whatever you want. Once you have the section of the song you wish to have as your ringtone, hit ok to save the changes, right click the song and select convert to AAC this time. Doing so will make a new
If you have a razr or any other phone with bluetooth and bluetooth on your computer, you can do the same thing to make ringtones for those also, you just have to use whatever bluetooth sync program your phone uses (and you probably have to convert to mp3 instead of AAC, which is changeable in itunes preferences, and skip the m4a -> m4r section).
Read that section again, 10.6 beat 9.10 on the Apache compile, but lost by as much as it had won on the PHP compile. As with most of the tests they used, its a toss up between OS's.
In reality, both of these "benchmark" articles blow goats. The Computerworld one is extremely subjective and takes a whole lot of artistic license in determining the winners in a few categories. The Phoronix one gets points for being more objective, but in reality it really doesn't tell you anything. Unless you use your computer only for something extremely specific like doing long scientific calculations and simulations or intense movie rendering etc., the performance difference between OS's could be as much as 15-25% and still not matter. The difference between me saving a document and it taking a quarter second or it taking a half second is negligible, as is loading a webpage in a half second compared to a whole second. That's not to say more performance and better tuning isn't nice, it's actually a great thing. It's why I prefer Chrome to Firefox. The miniscule differences in page loading, startup times, and url searches all add up to a more positive experience that I prefer. BUT (and thats a big but, like something sir mix a lot would enjoy), when it comes to a choice such as what operating system you should use, there are so much more important reasons than how quickly your system compiles apache to base your pick on. Application capability is a big one. Like to game? Windows it is. Are you a big traveler? Then the 8 hour battery life of the new Macbook Pro's + OS X might be just what you need. Working in academia? Depending on where and what you are involved in, Linux could be the dominant OS of choice.
Each system has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Comparing things like installation experiences (something your users should only have to go through once) or benchmarking their performance in a multi-threaded ray tracing is journalistic wankery and serves no real purpose but to inflate page clicks and rouse up the fanboys. If you want to really figure out what OS is best for you, then look first to yourself and what your computer needs are, then find the one that meets those needs through its available applications and support. If all of them meet your needs, then look at the price of each and what sort of hardware needs you have, and if the OS can meet those. Still stumped? Pick which OS you're most familiar with. Point is, random performance metrics and criticisms of taskbar vs. dock or expose/spaces vs. compiz is the grime at bottom of the barrel in terms of reasons to pick an OS.
Okay, fanboys, stop modding reasonable comments like the above as flamebait
It has nothing to do with bias. To say that 10.N to 10.N+1 is the same as XP SP# to XP SP#+1 is at best a horrible misunderstanding, and at worst a malicious (towards Apple) lie. I'm going to lean more towards it being the latter in this situation, because
1: It's not $100 a year to upgrade, its about $50 a year since 10.3
2: It's a bullshit comparison anyways because you are comparing consistently upgrading to the newest OS on one side and consistently not upgrading on the other
3: If you ignore the fact that it's already a bullshit comparison because you are just pointing out that it costs money to upgrade your OS and doesn't cost money to not do so, it is still a weak comparison, because even though 10.N releases are not as big as Vista was to XP, 10.N releases are much bigger than Windows service packs.
4: Historically Microsoft has followed a 2-3 year release schedule similar to how Apple has the past 7 or so years, they charge more at retail per OS release than Apple does, and they will likely be returning to that sort of release schedule if the Vista to 7 turnover time is any indication. Think about it: 3.0 (1990) -> 3.1 (1992) -> win 95 -> win 98 -> win 2000/ME - > xp ('01) -- *6 freakin years* --> vista (early '07) -> Win 7 (sept 09?).
As to the actual Google Voice thing, I really don't care on anything more than on "the principle of it all" level. "Duplication of functionality" is a dubious reason for Apple to block any application for the phone, especially if the applications do so in a novel way like GV. For me, Google Voice seems like it would be cool if you don't have an iPhone or if you have lots of separate phone numbers, but otherwise I don't really see what is so revolutionary about it. If you don't have an iPhone the voicemail emails would be useful, but if you do have an iPhone it's just visual voicemail. That said if you do have lots of separate phone numbers, the idea of being able to configure which of your numbers ring depending on who is calling is pretty slick. Most everything else GV provides seems to be pretty standard stuff (call forwarding, call history, conference calling, etc). Really as far as I'm concerned the best thing to come as a result of GV is all the e-drama, because it's without a doubt been one of the (if not the) major factors in Apple's still meager but growing openness about the app store.
Individuals and anonymous contributors make up for the remaining 24% according to the youtube link posted in the first comment thread.