Now I can finally get a Japanese style tattoo that's relevant to my culture and personality. To think that I almost went with Koi...
Obvious sarcasm not so much.
Needs more polycarbon video suits and use of hallucinogenic terrorism for comedic effect.
I wrote this as a response to KamWrex below but I liked it enough to post an edited version as a standalone comment, sorry if anyone is annoyed by the doublepost...
This likely means that Neilsen is averaging usage among all participants in their study - I know that there are plenty of people out there who got a smartphone either because their friends had one or the "felt that they should get one" and who don't use it for much beyond phone calls & texting. Or phone/texting/email/Facebook, and just stop there. Hell, my wife is fairly tech-savvy and she really only uses phone/text/email/Facebook/Twitter/maps/browser (full disclosure - she has an iPhone, I use Android).
This does not mean that there aren't a ton of awesome applications out there - this just means that *most* people will only use between five and ten, which (strangely enough) are likely to be the "Top Ten" apps that they're referring to.
Additional information on my own usage, I tend to use the following applications most: Gmail/Mail (I like to keep work & personal email separate)/Maps/Talk/GTasks/Messages/Pulse/Google+/Facebook/Twitter/Aldiko/IMDb/Dolphin. That's only (13) and I consider myself a "Power User" (in that I use my phone a *lot* more than the stated hour-a-day and tend to pull it out rather than going to the nearest computer when I want to do something). I use other apps on a daily/multiple times a week basis (weather, various other note-taking applications, Wapedia, etc.) but it's still less than (20) that I regularly use.
This likely means that Neilsen is averaging usage among all participants in their study - I know that there are plenty of people out there who got a smartphone either because their friends had one or the "felt that they should get one" and who don't use it for much beyond phone calls & texting. Or phone/texting/email/Facebook, and just stop there. Hell, my wife is fairly tech-savvy and she really only uses phone/text/email/Facebook/Twitter/maps/browser (full disclosure - she has an iPhone, I use Android).
This does not mean that there aren't a ton of awesome applications out there - this just means that *most* people will only use between five and ten, which (strangely enough) are likely to be the "Top Ten" apps that they're referring to.
Additional information on my own usage, I tend to use the following applications most: Gmail/Mail (I like to keep work & personal email separate)/Maps/Talk/GTasks/Messages/Pulse/Google+/Facebook/Twitter/Aldiko/IMDb/Dolphin. That's only (13) and I consider myself a "Power User" (in that I use my phone a *lot* more than the stated hour-a-day and tend to pull it out rather than going to the nearest computer when I want to do something). I use other apps on a daily/multiple times a week basis (weather, various other note-taking applications, Wapedia, etc.) but it's still less than (20) that I regularly use.
Agreed - on my Mac, I currently (and for the past few days) have (3) "apps" open - Chrome, NeoOffice and Adium. Does this mean that all Mac applications must suck? Nope, I have plenty of different applications and use them when I have a need for them, but I don't have a regular/daily/ongoing need for them.
Or that Neilsen is averaging usage among all participants in their study - I know that there are plenty of people out there who got a smartphone either because their friends had one or the "felt that they should get one" and who don't use it for much beyond phone calls & texting. Or phone/texting/email/Facebook, and just stop there. Hell, my wife is fairly tech-savvy and she really only uses phone/text/email/Facebook/Twitter/maps/browser (full disclosure - she has an iPhone, I use Android).
This does not mean that there aren't a ton of awesome applications out there - this just means that *most* people will only use between five and ten, which (strangely enough) are likely to be the "Top Ten" apps that they're referring to.
This does not mean that there aren't a ton of awesome applications out there - this just means that *most* people will only use between five and ten, which (strangely enough) are likely to be the "Top Ten" apps that they're referring to.
True, but a) I asked for this (I have the option of keeping all numbers on my phone instead, but I'd prefer to back them up in G-land) and b) Google has proven to be at least a *little* more trustworthy with my data than Facebook.
Yeah, that's also what I've taken away from the pollen suits - If the crop is your design, then anything it does is your responsibility, and if you can't keep your products from interfacing with my products then you need to review your system design and alter it, NOT SUE. But the courts will listen to whoever has the most lawyers and lawyers will listen to whoever has the most money, so Monsanto wins the day.
Natural Evolution is, well, natural first and foremost. And Selective Breeding is still *breeding*, that's just saying "Hey, these apples taste good. See if we can mate them with those sh*tty tasting apples that happen to be drought resistant and we'll see if the end result still tastes good".
None of that involves seeing if fish DNA will upgrade tomatoes into superfruit that only one company has the patent on and only they can breed and that they can sue people who the wind brings their pollen into contact with for stealing trade secrets and who don't adequately test the long term health results of eating.
Sorry for the rant, and I'm not *totally* against GMO crops but there's got to be a better vetting process and there's a LOT more research that I feel needs to be done before it's ready to go into the corner market.
None of that involves seeing if fish DNA will upgrade tomatoes into superfruit that only one company has the patent on and only they can breed and that they can sue people who the wind brings their pollen into contact with for stealing trade secrets and who don't adequately test the long term health results of eating.
Sorry for the rant, and I'm not *totally* against GMO crops but there's got to be a better vetting process and there's a LOT more research that I feel needs to be done before it's ready to go into the corner market.
For $100, I'd rock the black one (and feel pretty nerd-tastic while doing so, but I'm comfortable with that). For $350? Not so much.
Yeah, the wife & I were looking at Macs the other day (her Powerbook is about eight years old now, so it's really starting to show it's age) and we actually looked at iMacs for a minute. I'm not really pro those units (annoying to upgrade or modify but yet they're still stationary/non-portable, I want it to either be one or the other but that's just me...) but they would have worked for her needs (intarwebz, word processing, specific applications for online education, light photo editing, etc.) but the friggin' glossy display just drove us away. We would have easily paid the extra $150 (or even $200/$250) for a higher resolution matte screen like you can for the MacBook Pro if the option was offered.
See, in my opinion this is why we have judges - sometimes evidence can be gathered in a perfectly legal way and then declared inadmissible because of other factors. Like the electricity usage being an indicator of a drug factory noted above - it's perfectly legal to see what a suspect's electricity usage is, but judges have ruled that it can't be used as probable cause to get a search warrant. In this case the judge could simply disallow any GPS data collected while on private land while ruling that the data collected "in public" was perfectly valid. Eh, only time will tell, I guess.
Well, Cell & GPS jammers are ostensibly illegal because of FCC regulations (IIRC), but my paranoid mind says that that was put in place so that individual citizens wouldn't be able to control whether or not they could be used (I'm thinking in terms of the individual citizen who's interested in stockpiling guns on his Montana compound). Note - I'm not saying that I necessarily *disagree* with this (just like I don't necessarily disagree with the ban on radar detectors), just that I think that the law was put in place for reasons other than the stated ones.
I actually think that you're missing the point a bit - the GPS was used to show that he went to a location, it didn't give any indication of what he was doing once he was on private property. No matter how long of a driveway his paramour had, GPS could show that a) he arrived at a certain location at a certain time and b) that he departed that location at a certain time. Just like anyone could do if they decided to follow you to your friend's and had the inclination to stake out all the exits. Sure, they'd have no knowledge of where you went *on* your friend's property but they could totally say "Well, at 12:15pm on the 9th subject arrived at location X and remained at location X until approximately 6;30pm same day, at which point he departed for location Y".
I actually believe that the courts overturned the "excessive electricity use as probable cause" argument, at least as a lone indicator. It could probably be used as a factor in getting a warrant along with other indicators, though.
I wasn't really speaking to GPS satellites, but yes - at least in my non-legal opinion, if the device can be "seen" then it appears that it would be fine. Of course, there's the question of who planted the GPS device and whether they had a right to place it there, but in this case since it's a husband/wife situation I don't think that he could get anywhere with a (for instance) vandalism or tampering with private property defense. Perhaps if it was the FBI/etc., however - if they had to trespass to put the tracker on, at least.
I noted this to ian.g.case in my comment above this one, but if you can be *seen* from a public place (street, park, neighbor's yard, observation satellite, etc.) then there's no expectation of privacy. If you're naked in your house no one cares, unless of course you have the curtains open, in which case it *is* public nudity.
At least when it comes to your house, it's an "ability to be seen" thing. If whatever you're doing can be seen from public property (even with a telephoto lens/binoculars/telescope/etc.) then there's no expectation of privacy. In other words, if you're going to get up to something, don't do it in the yard and make sure that your very thick drapes are closed.
Very illegal. As are cell phone jammers. Both, in my opinion, for the same reason that radar detectors are illegal in some states.
That was actually suggested in Lifehacker a while ago - a photographer wanted to get a higher level of security for all his gear when he traveled, so he bought a *STARTER PISTOL* and kept it in the same case as all of his cameras/lenses. Perfectly legal, in that he had no ammo and was checking it, and there's a MUCH higher level of security & accountability associated with your luggage when there's a weapon involved (even if it's a starter pistol, apparently).
[lifehacker.com]
[lifehacker.com]
