You think that is bad, wait till they have to pay another 2/5 for BS.
Subscribers have been paying for that for over two decades now.
The Motorola Droid does "Voice Dialing", in that you select the voice dial app by hand, speak a command, then acknowledge any prompts by hand. It does not do hands free voice dialing (wired or bluetooth) in the manner that many phones have been doing for 5 years and more: Touch button on hands-free kit and interact totally by voice.
This is one of the main reasons why I'm not going near Android yet: "all with only a single touch of your phone." is not hands-free.
When Android phones appear with true hands-free voice dialing (through a Bluetooth headset) and can run for 3-4 days on a single charge, I'll be interested.
Until then, I'm sticking with dumb-phones.
(Samsung phones like my S7220 don't have hands-free voice-dialing either, any of them as far as I can tell - the market-led engineering at Samsung dictates that smile detection and "fake calls" are more important - but I can go six days on a single charge *)
I don't expect to see that longevity on Android until 2012, if at all.
* But only because I have no friends
We had to type in our games by hand, in hexadecimal, for two whole hours. And fix the bugs introduced by printing errors in the magazine. Then after playing for five minutes, we'd switch off, and next time we'd have to type in the whole thing again.
You try and tell the young people of today that
Scary thing is: I still have the Yorkshire accent.
Also reported by the Daily Mail, the Belfast Telegraph, Daily Star, and a whole bunch of other sh*trags that can't be bothered to report real stories. Even Fox News got in on the act.
This "research" was revealed in a press release published by Chevrolet UK (that's GM's rebadged Daewoo division), who are desperate to get people to buy their cars without paying for a full-page ad.
Amusingly though, Fox News and The Independent (which are poles apart in editorial views) reported this without even mentioning the company behind the press release; this thwarts GM's efforts, but also suggests that they think this is real news about real research, and not just a cheap marketing stunt.
2GB RAM and 320GB disk is the spec I bought (admittedly in a generic Dell PC) three years ago, for £450. Now Apple would like me to pay £649 for much the same thing.
Yes, I know Apple hardware is better built (ignoring for a moment the more serious design mistakes) but that Apple price premium always keeps me away from their products - I consider it a tax on stupidity.
Many BMW models have an mpg gauge in the lower half of the rev-counter, so you can actually see a needle flicking across when you rev the engine.
That's more visible than trip-computers, which most people probably have set to display range or average speed and not mpg.
Has he forgotten about SVG ? Adobe still distributes a viewer for SVG, and there's native support in Firefox.
I think they're basically saying "We don't want open standards - we want only our standard".
"Ink technology is expensive, and you pay for reliability and image quality."
I guess that explains why every time I go to use it my HP inkjet printer it has clogged up and I have to waste several pages and plenty of ink just to get it cleaned up enough to produce a decent printout. Granted, I go a couple of weeks between uses, but why can't a printer handle a duty cycle like that? By contrast my laser printer handles printing just fine whether I'm printing every day or leave it for a month, and the toner costs a tiny fraction of the per-page costs of the inkjet.
Between expense and unreliability, clearly inkjet technology isn't yet ready for real-world use. Buy a laser printer.
I completely agree. Ink-jets work best (least worst) when they're in regular (if not continual) use. But regular use means you really get stung by the price of the inks.
Many people with ink-jets use them only occasionally, at most once or twice a week. So the ink dries up, and you have to use way too much just to get the ink flowing again.
(Where are mod points when you need 'em?)
Since I'm an old guy who was using PCs in the DOS era, I'm entitled to reminisce about how things were better in the old days:
In the mid 1980's, I was using a Citizen 120D, a 9-pin dot matrix printer (standard for So/Ho use at the time, real professionals were using 24-pin printers), and that cost around £150 in the UK ($180 in the US).
With inflation, that would be around £300 ($330) today.
Similarly, I had the luxury of using a DeskJet 500 in the late '80s. That was a $500 printer, but the thing lasted for nearly ten years. It was bulletproof.
For something like $100 back then, people in the UK could by a crappy thermal printer like the Alphacom 32
And that's when printers had their own ROMs so they knew how to print stuff without relying on drivers or Windows GDI. Before the cost-cutting started.
So I conclude that as printers have got cheaper, they've actually got worse. Any printer these days costing less than about $100 will be absolute crap, and for anything good, we should get used to the idea of spending $200 upwards for something that will probably outlast our PC.
Rant over. Get off my lawn, kids.
...the consumer and desktop level printers are pretty much disposable junk with very expensive consumables.
The last 2 printers I bought were HP all-in-ones (printer/scanner/copier) at around £40 each. Both failed just after 12 months.
The first one (a C4180) gradually became unable to feed paper - I tried cleaning the rollers but that didn't really help; possibly some internal part had worked loose and was obstructing the paper.
The second printer (d7160 I think) suddenly became unable to recognise the presence of (genuine) printer cartridges.
So in the last 2-3 years, I've spent more on HP printers than on the ink cartridges, and after I bought replacement cartridges the printers never lasted long enough to use up all the ink.
...and the BBC isn't even allowed to show ads in the UK.
Of course they're allowed to show ads in the UK. They just don't need to, because they get revenue from the TV licence instead of from advertisers. They also get money by selling shows to other networks.
Why on earth would any broadcaster want to show ads? They only do it out of financial necessity.
If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.