It has MRU tab switch ordering!!! Oh wait, Firefox already had that, I just didn't care because it was.. Firefox. Now that it is faster, I care. If either of those is missing I don't care about the browser. It needs to offer MRU tab switching, and be fast, and be compatible with most websites, or at least with web standards so that the websites will eventually be compatible with it. Wait, that was like 3 or 4 things... Anyway, my point is, JUST ADD MRU TO CHROME ALREADY so I can stop caring about which browser I'm using and just always use Chrome, please. This is the place where you make a wish and it comes true right?
I was actually kind of excited until I started reading the sample code and that it deletes code that has bugs. Of course this coming from the guy who went on a reddit rant about how not having 100% coverage is usually irresponsible.
The intro video is very...interesting. They have this fast paced, upbeat music while they very slowly do things on the phone, like make phone calls. It felt like they thought we should be impressed it can make phone calls.
I had a friend how got a Freerunner, but he returned it after a few weeks because "no matter how awesome it is, I need something that can actually make phone calls". So it certainly didn't work for him on day zero.
Can't second that ;). While my Freerunner was indeed able to do phone calls on day zero, it also turned in hands-free talking automagically without any possibility to turn it off. This was a lot "fun" especially in public places. So maybe we are talking about the definition of "making phone calls" here.
I then flashed a fully featured Debian on it which was able to do everything except making phone calls. I was so excited about that while all my non-techie friends were like "Well, lucky you but now you have a so called Smartphone which isn't even a phone."
Dropped it as a daily driver after two weeks or so to leave it on my desk for a long time until someone on the Freerunner mailing list asked if someone is willing to sell theirs. 20 people offered theirs for free so I couldn't get rid of mine. Gave it to an Open Device Lab then, they still own it but never listed it in their device list.
But somehow I don't regret buying it in the first place.
Yeah, and that's why we shouldn't be impressed that it can make a phone call. That's expected. But on the intro video for a new phone OS they're 'unveiling' I want to see what's new / different about it. I assume it can make calls.
It's an improvement on Openmoko. I remember the first time some freetard tried to show me Openmoko at a trade show, and before he could successfully make a phone call he had to pop up an xterm, run alsamixer, and fix everything. It was hilarious.
I believe Openmoko used GTK+. Maybe Qt was what the project needed all along.
Openmoko used GTK+ in their first two distro iterations, then Qtopia on X11 with E17-based WM, and then went fully EFL.
And since 2008, when I got my Neo Freerunner, I didn't have many issues with phone functionality unless I broke it myself (which I kept doing, as I loved to tinker with that phone) - and I've been using Freerunner for years until I replaced it with N900. The worst issue I experienced that wasn't my fault was that in GTK-based Om2007.2 messaging app slowed down awfully once it got thousands of SMS in its history, with evolution-server hogging the CPU for many seconds on most actions. Didn't happen on next OS iterations.
There was also buzz issue on early devices, but that was easily fixable.
I like that it's open source now, but until they remove the need to mark certain references as weak or unknown, it still just feels like Apple doesn't get modern languages. Until the automatic memory management is more automatic, I will avoid swift if I can. I know many will say it is "not a big deal", but that is not true. It is an extra thing the developer needs to keep track of and to get right if they want to prevent bugs in their code. It makes programming more stressful and less fun. It is something that is very easy make a mistake with. It is a step backwards from other technologies. I know ARC is supposed to be faster than other automatic memory management techniques, but that is just an excuse. Yes, lower performance could be a problem with fully automatic memory management. But problems were meant to be solved, not dumped onto the users of your language. I'm sure it is possible to get it fast enough for most projects. There should at least be a compiler option to enable fully automatic memory management for projects that don't need that extra bit of speed. Computers, including mobile devices, are getting faster and faster. This is especially true for the iPhone and iPad.
Enjoy the freedom of working remotely without losing the benefits of working from the same office. You can even change your office layout to be on a spaceship in space!
Correct, but most of them do use it as a preservative. I agree the article should address this instead of just saying processed meats are bad. Also, high quality vitamin C can block the nitrosamine formation if you consume it with your processed meat.
I don't know of any modern source of health information that I trust completely. That goes for the articles in Natural News and even the things Mike Adams himself publishes. I will admit that it is not uncommon for his reasoning to be biased and one-dimensional. However, I think overall he is really knowledgeable about health and is one of the best sources to learn from. He seems to be really trying to find out the truth about health, and I trust his opinions more than most others. Go back and listen to his earliest radio show episodes. Then look at some of the recent stuff he has done with doing his own independent scientific testing. He is a great source of information about health, but definitely question the reasoning of his arguments and do other research.
I hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, not everything gives you cancer. Only things that give you cancer, give you cancer. Lots of foods have anti-cancer properties. Basically, the more natural the food is, the more likely it will be to prevent or even treat cancer. Now when I say treat cancer, I am not saying it is guaranteed to get rid of all your cancer, or you should not seek help from a trusted smart cancer fighting person (notice I did not say doctor or oncologist?). Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI. Basically if you eat vegetables and fruit, these are anti-cancer. But if you already have cancer, you have to be careful with fruit because of the sugar. But vegetables are good. However, even with fruits and vegetables, the more natural their state the better. If you juice them instead of blending the whole thing, you lose a lot of the nutrition. You are no longer eating it in the original state it was intended to be consumed. They were designed to be a complete package, the nutrients complement each other and enable your body to deal with and use the other things in the food. If they were grown with pesticides or herbicides, these can contribute to cancer. If the ground they are grown in is nutritionally depleted, the food will be also. If the ground or water used is polluted, the food will be also. The best thing is to buy a water distiller, to clean your own water. Then grow your own fruits and vegetables using that water and using high quality, clean, plant superfood. From http://www.foodrising.org/, you can even purchase a very low maintenance, small hydroponic system that allows you to easily grow very nutritious, better than organic fruits and vegetables.
Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanuts with fungicide are way less likely to give you cancer than peanuts in their natural state. Also, saparilla has almost been completely removed from the diet due to perceived cancer risk.
It is true that natural is not always less carcinogenic, but it is one of the simplest and most effective reasoning points. In fact this way of reasoning is so effective, that I am already pretty sure you are wrong about the peanut thing, or at least oversimplifying it in a misleading way, despite the fact that I have never even heard of this before and have done no research at all. I would be interested to see what evidence there is that I am wrong about peanuts. It is also good to reason about whether something was intended for human consumption. Marijuana may be "natural", but I don't think we are intended to eat it for food. If you think a certain food was intended to be eaten it it's original raw state, then reasoning about different ways it can be changed away from that state will help you. The way we grow, process, cook, and eat food is getting farther and farther away from the natural state it started with.
The problem with peanuts is aflatoxin. It's a really, really bad contaminant. If human livers weren't so resilient, ingesting this toxin would almost guarantee liver cancer. Most commercial peanuts have either been rigorously inspected or doused in fungicide.
Yes, independent self experimentation is the way to go. You are not hoping that you can trust the people doing the study. You don't need to hope they did things the way they were reportedly done. You don't need to hope someone did not get paid off to tweak the numbers at the end. You just need to educate yourself on how to do proper studies and how to avoid false conclusions and techniques to bypass your own biases. But you also need to realize the results only apply to you at this part of your life. You can't promote your discoveries as being an absolute cure for other peoples problems. Even your own body can change over time and what used to work for you may no longer work.
Some things in science have become "immoral" to question. In a big way evolution, including macro evolution, has become the religion of science. If you even entertain the idea that macro evolution has not been happening, you might be labeled an evil heretic. You might be labeled anti-science. You might be laughed out of your field. You could get fired from your job. You might lose all your funding. All of this could happen even if you go about your research, testing, and analysis in a very objective, scientific way.
