If you had followed the Apple-Samsung court case and reviewed the evidence that Apple ultimately produced about its design process (designs and timelines), then yes, it's clear that the external aspect of the design and much of the internals required to make it possible came before any other work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
*snort*
Ignoring the fact that you took my comment out-of-context, I'm only going off release day models owned by myself and some friends, however before this, many of us owned either iPhone 3GS or 4S devices and these didn't age quite so gracefully. Of course, there's no guarantee either phone will outlast the other, however my personal experiences allow me to believe the average favours the GS3 currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh brother.
It's just another small detail in the ergonomics, but it adds up and eventually, you end up with a bad device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When an Android manufacturer makes a device out of nanotubes, you let us know.
Devices built using this technology have already been demonstrated by Nokia and other firms. There have been a small few chances for hands-on contact with these devices in the press. I guess what I'm saying is, it's not as far away as you may think, especially as it's a big enabler for devices with flexible or curved elements. Initially, expect it as a support for flexible devices and sensors, as production ramps-up, it'll become a cost-effective building material.
I dropped my 4S twice before I put a case on it. Didn't break.
As with any mobile, the angle, force of the impact and the surface material make a huge difference. I've generally found that the rigidity through the use of metal and glass makes the iPhone more susceptible in certain circumstances (especially if it lands on a corner/hard material with little elasticity), though likewise, I've also dropped an iPhone before and not had it break. I'm instead using the experience of reports from people around me to back-up my own experiences, however, not everyone's device is going to suffer the same fate.
It depends, what do you consider an advancement in the smartphone market to be? Personally I've been impressed by the comfort of the GS3 despite the larger screen, which in turn has allowed better remote access into work than previously and I now find the screen large enough to use to enjoyably stream content when in the bus station etc (where previously I didn't). Other little tweaks like when the device vibrates when you pick it up to remind you of a missed call/message I've found very useful in everyday life but, it all depends on what you're looking for in a device and your daily habits/preferences/requirements.
Baloney. Your entire post indicates a lack of knowledge of chemical sciences. Stuff like "What happens to something that melts? Usually, the constituents break free from the overall structure due to bonds (chemical) being destroyed." is proof that you're not a chemist. No chemist would use language like that. Not to mention, of course, that it's wrong. Melting does not break chemical bonds. Since you don't even understand a simple Freshman Chemistry principles, your opinion is totally worthless.
My PhD in Chemistry from an Ivy League School is well documented for anyone who cares.
You don't know why ice floats on water then.
Where did u get your PhD from?
Probably out of a Corn Flakes box.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
Baloney. Your entire post indicates a lack of knowledge of chemical sciences. Stuff like "What happens to something that melts? Usually, the constituents break free from the overall structure due to bonds (chemical) being destroyed." is proof that you're not a chemist. No chemist would use language like that. Not to mention, of course, that it's wrong. Melting does not break chemical bonds. Since you don't even understand a simple Freshman Chemistry principles, your opinion is totally worthless.
My PhD in Chemistry from an Ivy League School is well documented for anyone who cares.
You don't know why ice floats on water then.
Where did u get your PhD from?
Probably out of a Corn Flakes box.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
I think what he is being confused about is not melting from one physical state to another, obviously melting itself does not break chemical bonds.... maybe the transformation due to combustion and releasing harmful combustion byproducts? You guys are talking about two totally different things...
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
The question of water and ice had nothing to do with melting per se.
It was a question to guage his understanding of chemistry, in which you both failed miserably.
I consider this topic closed because I refuse to bang my head on the wall discussing fundamental principles with those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Bye, bye.
I'm pretty certain it will get it. The S III has been updated quickly for an Android-based device. They simply have the sales numbers to warrant the investment. I don't think that will change with the S IV. Even the Galaxy S II are slated to get 4.2.2. as their last Android OS and the S III to get 5.x.
The main difference is that Google will do internal testing of 5.0 for its Nexus devices so that when they finally release it then the other vendors can start to do their testing and make their changes. This takes time but I think it's fair to consider Apple's iOS beta testing time for any such comparison, just as its fair to consider this vendor and device specific stepping of what gets an update, if it gets an update, as a real issue for most customers that are using Android.
Baloney. Your entire post indicates a lack of knowledge of chemical sciences. Stuff like "What happens to something that melts? Usually, the constituents break free from the overall structure due to bonds (chemical) being destroyed." is proof that you're not a chemist. No chemist would use language like that. Not to mention, of course, that it's wrong. Melting does not break chemical bonds. Since you don't even understand a simple Freshman Chemistry principles, your opinion is totally worthless.
My PhD in Chemistry from an Ivy League School is well documented for anyone who cares.
Heh. Case in point, water.
What would be the point of pointing out that water has four solid states (one of which is only achievable through so much pressure that it's exclusively theorical: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1941.pdf) if you have to explain all the equations on an Internet board?
Television teaches people to grossly approximate, which is what he did, I think. In absolute, he's right thinking that heat will "usually" break chemical bonds, but approximating "melting" with "chemical bonds broken" would mean that ice turning to liquid water would change H20's chemical structure.
However, sufficient heat applied to said water will first turn it to gaseous state (yaye, cute clouds), then break it into various combinations of hydrogen and oxygen atoms at 2200°C (well, one third of H20 molecules are broken on average at that heat level, half at 3000°C if I am not mistaken).
That was just, however, random science bits learned from savvier people than me for the benefit of whoever cares ^^'
The question of water and ice had nothing to do with melting per se.
It was a question to guage his understanding of chemistry, in which you both failed miserably.
I consider this topic closed because I refuse to bang my head on the wall discussing fundamental principles with those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Bye, bye.
Whoah, the classic "I failed but won't admit it, so i consider the discussion closed because I made an ass of myself".
Anyway, bye bye, hfts. Enjoy your stay at SamsungInsider!
Hey when u put ur soul in designing a a premium product it shows up in the craftsmanship which is missing in SG4 which is been glorified with worthless piece of cheap plastic n use of android is being masked with services n app. This is height of sickness. Don't try to make consumer an idiot with these baseless judgements
Hey when u put ur soul in designing a a premium product it shows up in the craftsmanship which is missing in SG4 which is been glorified with worthless piece of cheap plastic n use of android is being masked with services n app. This is height of sickness. Don't try to make consumer an idiot with these baseless judgements
Actually because of the complicated process to make certain Polycarbonate materials it's more expensive then Aluminum. That of course isn't saying much as Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the world, thus it's extremely inexpensive.
Comments
You lost me.
I dropped my 4S twice before I put a case on it. Didn't break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Clearly", huh.
If you had followed the Apple-Samsung court case and reviewed the evidence that Apple ultimately produced about its design process (designs and timelines), then yes, it's clear that the external aspect of the design and much of the internals required to make it possible came before any other work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
*snort*
Ignoring the fact that you took my comment out-of-context, I'm only going off release day models owned by myself and some friends, however before this, many of us owned either iPhone 3GS or 4S devices and these didn't age quite so gracefully. Of course, there's no guarantee either phone will outlast the other, however my personal experiences allow me to believe the average favours the GS3 currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh brother.
It's just another small detail in the ergonomics, but it adds up and eventually, you end up with a bad device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When an Android manufacturer makes a device out of nanotubes, you let us know.
Devices built using this technology have already been demonstrated by Nokia and other firms. There have been a small few chances for hands-on contact with these devices in the press. I guess what I'm saying is, it's not as far away as you may think, especially as it's a big enabler for devices with flexible or curved elements. Initially, expect it as a support for flexible devices and sensors, as production ramps-up, it'll become a cost-effective building material.
Originally Posted by knightryda12
If you blindly ignore or even fail to notice the competition's advancements, you will be surpassed and blindsided whether you like it or not.
What 'advancements'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
You lost me.
I dropped my 4S twice before I put a case on it. Didn't break.
As with any mobile, the angle, force of the impact and the surface material make a huge difference. I've generally found that the rigidity through the use of metal and glass makes the iPhone more susceptible in certain circumstances (especially if it lands on a corner/hard material with little elasticity), though likewise, I've also dropped an iPhone before and not had it break. I'm instead using the experience of reports from people around me to back-up my own experiences, however, not everyone's device is going to suffer the same fate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What 'advancements'?
It depends, what do you consider an advancement in the smartphone market to be? Personally I've been impressed by the comfort of the GS3 despite the larger screen, which in turn has allowed better remote access into work than previously and I now find the screen large enough to use to enjoyably stream content when in the bus station etc (where previously I didn't). Other little tweaks like when the device vibrates when you pick it up to remind you of a missed call/message I've found very useful in everyday life but, it all depends on what you're looking for in a device and your daily habits/preferences/requirements.
Where did u get your PhD from?
Probably out of a Corn Flakes box.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
Where did u get your PhD from?
Probably out of a Corn Flakes box.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
You don't know why ice floats on water then.
Where did u get your PhD from?
Probably out of a Corn Flakes box.
Your lack of understanding basic chemistry is most self evident.
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
I think what he is being confused about is not melting from one physical state to another, obviously melting itself does not break chemical bonds.... maybe the transformation due to combustion and releasing harmful combustion byproducts? You guys are talking about two totally different things...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
I haven't even studied chemistry beyond 16 and even I knew that melting doesn't constitute a break in chemical bonds. Water is still water whether it's liquid or solid, it hasn't changed into a new compound/chemical, because no chemical bonds have been lost or made. It's simply due to the excitation levels of the particles as to how orderly they pack together. Of course there are intermolecular forces involved as with all matter, but none of those bond or break one atom to/from another in a way that produces new chemicals. So yeah... I'm inclined to believe Mr PhD on this one.
The question of water and ice had nothing to do with melting per se.
It was a question to guage his understanding of chemistry, in which you both failed miserably.
I consider this topic closed because I refuse to bang my head on the wall discussing fundamental principles with those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Bye, bye.
Google is supposed to be releasing Key Lime Pie in May.
Originally Posted by Justdl Bt
Google is supposed to be releasing Key Lime Pie in May.
Watch, the S4 won't even get it.
I'm pretty certain it will get it. The S III has been updated quickly for an Android-based device. They simply have the sales numbers to warrant the investment. I don't think that will change with the S IV. Even the Galaxy S II are slated to get 4.2.2. as their last Android OS and the S III to get 5.x.
The main difference is that Google will do internal testing of 5.0 for its Nexus devices so that when they finally release it then the other vendors can start to do their testing and make their changes. This takes time but I think it's fair to consider Apple's iOS beta testing time for any such comparison, just as its fair to consider this vendor and device specific stepping of what gets an update, if it gets an update, as a real issue for most customers that are using Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Baloney. Your entire post indicates a lack of knowledge of chemical sciences. Stuff like "What happens to something that melts? Usually, the constituents break free from the overall structure due to bonds (chemical) being destroyed." is proof that you're not a chemist. No chemist would use language like that. Not to mention, of course, that it's wrong. Melting does not break chemical bonds. Since you don't even understand a simple Freshman Chemistry principles, your opinion is totally worthless.
My PhD in Chemistry from an Ivy League School is well documented for anyone who cares.
Heh. Case in point, water.
What would be the point of pointing out that water has four solid states (one of which is only achievable through so much pressure that it's exclusively theorical: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1941.pdf) if you have to explain all the equations on an Internet board?
Television teaches people to grossly approximate, which is what he did, I think. In absolute, he's right thinking that heat will "usually" break chemical bonds, but approximating "melting" with "chemical bonds broken" would mean that ice turning to liquid water would change H20's chemical structure.
However, sufficient heat applied to said water will first turn it to gaseous state (yaye, cute clouds), then break it into various combinations of hydrogen and oxygen atoms at 2200°C (well, one third of H20 molecules are broken on average at that heat level, half at 3000°C if I am not mistaken).
That was just, however, random science bits learned from savvier people than me for the benefit of whoever cares ^^'
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
The question of water and ice had nothing to do with melting per se.
It was a question to guage his understanding of chemistry, in which you both failed miserably.
I consider this topic closed because I refuse to bang my head on the wall discussing fundamental principles with those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Bye, bye.
Whoah, the classic "I failed but won't admit it, so i consider the discussion closed because I made an ass of myself".
Anyway, bye bye, hfts. Enjoy your stay at SamsungInsider!
http://www.iqreseller.com/html/IT-Asset-Management.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Watch, the S4 won't even get it.
You can now install the Nexus versions of Andoid on the S4 so it will be one of the first to have it but it was still funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeejucm
Hey when u put ur soul in designing a a premium product it shows up in the craftsmanship which is missing in SG4 which is been glorified with worthless piece of cheap plastic n use of android is being masked with services n app. This is height of sickness. Don't try to make consumer an idiot with these baseless judgements
Actually because of the complicated process to make certain Polycarbonate materials it's more expensive then Aluminum. That of course isn't saying much as Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the world, thus it's extremely inexpensive.