132 members have voted

  1. 1. If you are an Android user will you buy the iPhone 5?

    • Yes
      35
    • No
      85
    • Undecided
      12


Recommended Posts

apple.com is hacked

running who is on apple.com gives you this .. ha ha ha..

>whois apple.com

...

APPLE.COM.WAS.PWNED.BY.M1CROSOFT.COM

APPLE.COM.IS.OWN3D.BY.NAKEDJER.COM

APPLE.COM.IS.0WN3D.BY.GULLI.COM

works fine and no it doesn't...

Domain Name: apple.com

Updated: 2 minutes ago - Refresh

Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.

Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com

Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com

Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Expiration Date: 2020-02-20

Creation Date: 1987-02-19

Last Update Date: 2010-04-27

Name Servers:

nserver.apple.com

nserver.asia.apple.com

nserver.euro.apple.com

nserver2.apple.com

nserver3.apple.com

nserver4.apple.com

See apple.com DNS Records

APPLE.COM.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM

APPLE.COM.WAS.PWNED.BY.M1CROSOFT.COM

APPLE.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM

APPLE.COM.IS.OWN3D.BY.NAKEDJER.COM

APPLE.COM.IS.0WN3D.BY.GULLI.COM

APPLE.COM.BEYONDWHOIS.COM

APPLE.COM.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM

APPLE.COM

:p

i know :( it's all i wanted out of this conference...

Considering I bought my very first iPod 4g 40 GB for €440 back in 2004 €229 really isn't that much though. Can't really remember what I bought my 2007 iPod classic for though, I think it was 80 GB or something.

... no it doesn't. at all. 2.3 doesn't have hardware acceleration and the hardware acceleration in 3.2 is a joke. you tried though...

and what more can a rooted android do over a jailbroken iphone?

From what I'm aware of, the SGS2 at least has a hardware accelerated browser - but that's not Google's doing, it's Samsung's own work.

I think the biggest question why not present it in June? Was they waiting for iOS5 and do they themselves feel its not enough of a jump in tech to call iphone 5?

Its impressive phone on its own, Siri is probably a game changer but I think most where wanting a nice new piece of industrial design or bigger screen.

4G doesn't bother me, at this moment in time I'd prefer the battery life.

I think the biggest question why not present it in June? Was they waiting for iOS5 and do they themselves feel its not enough of a jump in tech to call iphone 5?

Its impressive phone on its own, Siri is probably a game changer but I think most where wanting a nice new piece of industrial design or bigger screen.

4G doesn't bother me, at this moment in time I'd prefer the battery life.

i don't understand why everyone wants a bigger screen... the screen that it has now is perfect sized IMO.

And you've been here long enough to know to put someone on ignore if you have a problem with them...

On topic: I'm not impressed... Looks like I'll be staying with Android... I was really hoping for the iphone 5 too...

Not impressed with a Dual Core CPU/GPU, new anntena update, 8MP Camera that also does 1080p Video with image stabilisation and temporal noise reduction?

Thats completely ignoring the Siri voice command 'AI' that lets you use normal speak to command your phone instead of pre-deterimined commands.

The only thing thats stopping them calling it iPhone 5 is the fact that it comes in the same form-factor as iPhone 4.

Not once did Apple say that iPhone 5 was coming, so called tech analysts and unprofessional blog news sites start spreading rumours that iPhone 5 might be coming, everyone gets overhyped and its somehow Apples fault?????

Apple dropped the ball with the one feature they desperately need, a bigger screen. My iPhone 4 will suffice until next year, but if there is no bigger screen by then, I will have to bail ship and go Android.

To be honest, the 3.5" screen is perfect for most people. Sure, Apple could make the bezel around the screen thinner, but my colleagues at work and myself for example would never buy a phone with a larger form factor.

There is absolutely a market for people who want a 4"+ screen on their mobile, all I'm saying is that the market is even larger for people who prefer the current size.

Apple dropped the ball with the one feature they desperately need, a bigger screen. My iPhone 4 will suffice until next year, but if there is no bigger screen by then, I will have to bail ship and go Android.

No offense and I don't want to troll at all I'm just genuinely curious what all the demand for a bigger screen is :blink: I know it's personal preference but what do people actually gain from a bigger screen is what I scratch my head over :/ I used old gen iPhones, the iPhone 4, a HTC Desire and a HTC Desire HD and I have to say the 3.7" display of the normal Desire seemed about perfect to operate with one hand while the 4.3" screen of the Desire HD of a friend was a pain to operate :pinch:

I do agree that 3.5" is a bit small but in this case I would say rather a bit too small and comfortable than too big and hand cramping, though maybe I just have small hands :p

To be honest, the 3.5" screen is perfect for most people. Sure, Apple could make the bezel around the screen thinner, but my colleagues at work and myself for example would never buy a phone with a larger form factor.

There is absolutely a market for people who want a 4"+ screen on their mobile, all I'm saying is that the market is even larger for people who prefer the current size.

+1 I also am part of the group who finds the current form factor the sweet spot. If they can keep it and bring it up to 3.7" okay but please no bigger phone^^

I was expecting a new design, but I suppose if the current design works then there's no reason to scrap it (And it means companies don't have to re-design their cases)

I am glad they didn't jump on the "4G" bandwagon, every company takes that to mean something different so there are compatibility issues (Although it'd be funny if Apple did release the first true 4G phone by using LTE Advanced, but that wouldn't work well)

Personally I don't care about the name, iPhone 5 or 4S doesn't matter it's just a name. The spec bumps are on par with what I expected BUT I was really hoping for a 4+ inch screen :/ If all they were going to do was bump the specs they should have released it in June like they always do.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!