high number of commits can be one indicator of "goodness"
but consider an unsolvable problem that tempts developers, yet stumps them at the same time. they could all commit a solution thinking it's the right one, yet nobody actually solves a problem.
not saying this about BSD ... obviously, but: high number of commits is not a very good metric besides indicating that people are committing.
> There is no more hardware back button on any recent android phone either...
Any?
While the Galaxy Nexus has onscreen navigation controls now (and the Nexus7 followed suit), both the One X and the Samsung Galaxy SIII have dedicated capacitive back buttons "off screen". On the OneX the button is in the normal place (on the left) and is oddly (but in keeping with the SII) on the right on the SIII.
You can still support it sure, but the recommendation from google is to move away from them on phones. IIRC (don't quote me) on tablets, it's a requirement.
I use Bing as my default search engine, but for anything tech related, if I have trouble finding it on Bing, I switch to Google. There is clearly a difference between the two.
Google seems to have simply more pages indexed and that helps with obscure error messages or API usages, but seems to hinder it when searching for anything relatively common.
That's my experience as well. Because of this I use DDG as my main search engine now, mostly for privacy but also because I can switch to Google when it or Bing's index is lacking.
I don't know. I'm not a techie but a math student and most of my searches are math related, not technology related. When I took the Bing challenge Google beat Bing 5-0.
I also had similar results. On the searches where I chose something I knew about to search for, I always chose Google's results. On the one example where I chose a suggested example (Halloween Costumes) I chose Bing. My other searches were for a specific camera, the type of a battery used in an old film camera, a historic sail boat designer and a Rails method.
The two thoughts I had were: 1) Have the suggested examples been prescreened to favor Bing? 2) Do the Bing results favor a shallower explorations of topics while Google's favor more in depth ones?
i can confirm this too. 3 private message threads from 2009-2010 were on my wall with the privacy set to "friends". these were conversations right out of my private messages (which were also in my private messages).
i'm deleting every facebook message as a result of this, which isn't easy as it has to be done one by one.
i am in the US, but my UK friends are the ones who alerted me to it, as it was happening to them as well.
Same here, my wife just called me crying because a large number of very private conversations she had with friends in the past are now visible on her timeline.
Is the quickest option a manual delete? She is freaking out.
Edit: I have set her privacy as strict as I can for now, but having pressed her on the topic, it isn't entirely certain that these messages were ever private.
My comment to her was that even if they were always on your wall, you (in hindsight) don't think they should have been. Don't let Facebook convince you that you are wrong to have thought differently. Facebook's model doesn't work like the arrow of time, memories and conversations don't fade out naturally and disappear, they just stay there permanently. And today, your present self wonders what you were thinking that made you post that. When you add that to the fact that your social graph on Facebook was different 5 years ago than it is today, it makes sense that you naturally think certain things should have been private.
In other words, you weren't fit in 2006 to know what in 2012 you would regret having posted and you aren't fit in 2012 to know what you are going to regret in 2018.
If you really are freaking out about stuff that your past self thought should be known to the world, then do your future self a favor and stop putting your life on Facebook.
Had the same problem as well. About 10-15 private messages were shown on my timeline form 2008-2009. I've hid my timeline so only I can see it for right now until it's fixed. Seems like an quicker /easier than deleting the messages.
Same thing here, I'm French and lots of my friends are having the bug as well. Lots of mention in the online newspaper too.
I think once it's obvious that it's real, it's going to be a big deal for Facebook...
> Kind of like when you see a fake Rolex from 20 inches away and it looks pretty good, but then you look up close and suddenly one little flaw makes the whole thing fall apart.
The crystal on a Rolex sticks up above the bezel as well.
on battery life, i get anywhere from 1.5 to 3 days on my HSPA+ nexus (from play store) the way i use it. definitely have never sweated getting through a day.
* fair amount of web browsing
* little or no media or games
* heavy twitter, fairly heavy facebook
* 50+ SMS/gvoice messages per day
* 50+ emails a day
* ~1-2 hours of phone
* ~30 mins of tethering a day
coming from an iphone myself i was worried about battery life on the nexus, but it actually does better than my iphone did.
That said the data is pretty useless for many Android phones. For example the international S3 has a quad-core A9 based SoC while the US S3 has a dual-core krait based SoC. Also consider that both overclocking and underclocking is quite common amongst the android crowd that bother running geekbench.
The average across a product name is actually a really poor metic to use here. Well, geekbench scores in general are a really poor metric to use...
The results on the chart aren't averaged by name; they're averaged by name, by processor, and by processor frequency. We're aware that many Android devices with the same name use different processors, and of the fact that many Android devices are both over- and under-clocked by enthusiasts.
Sorry if this wasn't clear from the preamble on the chart; I'll have to update it.
I'm confused then. The US S3 with the dual-core krait SoC doesn't appear on the list at all but searching for the S3 shows results for a 2 core version, strangely a 3 core version, and the dual-core version doesn't have the expected clock speed of the krait cpu (1.5ghz).
Are these just the quad-core model with cores disabled or something? If so are they included in the average? They appear to be based on a cursory look through the data as 4 core @ 1.4 seems to mostly score 1700-1900 but the displayed average is obviously much lower.
I also don't get the One X results. Its like a 50/50 split of scores of ~1500 or ~600 and the difference seems to be android 4.0.4 vs 4.0.3. No idea what the difference was but almost tripling the score on a minor OS version seems odd.
Sorry but I'm still saying the results here aren't very useful, there is far too much variation in these tests to assign any significance to them.
Not all handsets are included in the chart. The Geekbench Browser has a list of handsets which it uses to build the benchmark chart. This list contains model and processor information and is manually maintained; if a handset isn't in the list, it's not included in the chart. I thought all of the S3 models were included in this list, but apparently I'm wrong. I'll make sure this list is up to date.
Geekbench is built with the NDK (since all of the benchmarks are written in C or C++). There was a bug in Android 4.0.3 and earlier that caused Android to select the ARMv5 libraries instead of the ARMv7 libraries (which caused a massive drop in performance). This was fixed in 4.0.4 which is why there's a huge jump in performance between the two versions on the One X.
Shouldn't results from the One X on 4.0.3 (or even all results from 4.0.3) be excluded from the averages then? In the case of the One X the average is ~1000 but without the ~600 scores in there the average would be much closer to ~1500.
Even leaked versions of the 4.0.4 update to the WWE One X were in demand because of the large performance improvement on benchmarks and smoother interaction. That's actually a true case. Although partially due to things like less 3D in the launcher.
I don't know what was done in this case, but I do think I remember seeing a statement by NVIDIA on early benchmarks at release that they still had optimizations to do. So that could be involved.
It hasn't been unknown in the mobile world for wacky stuff to get done, like having a dual core processor where you almost never use the second core to save batteries as well. So software can make a big difference.
If by "strategy" you mean patenting obvious and likely things that already existed and then litigating the crap out of people, you may be right...this trial has set a precedent that might make that sustainable for them.
but consider an unsolvable problem that tempts developers, yet stumps them at the same time. they could all commit a solution thinking it's the right one, yet nobody actually solves a problem.
not saying this about BSD ... obviously, but: high number of commits is not a very good metric besides indicating that people are committing.