Technology News

Cellular phone eight smartphone system

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:32 -0400

　　Home windows 8’s very first key update is over the way, supplying far more ability to customise touch-enabled Start out screens on Home windows eight machines with distinct sized dwell tiles.

　　The update, codenamed Home windows Blue, which in past versions of Home windows would have been regarded being a Support Pack, has leaked towards the world wide web.

　　It appears from Warren’s online video that Microsoft will extra closely align the user interface of Windows eight with that of its Home windows Cellular phone eight smartphone system. A whole new Customise button on the Start out display prevents the accidental motion of the dwell tiles.

　　New gestures insert further functionality. A swipe up in the base in the screen provides a summary of all set up apps while a swipe down offers a power off choice.

　　The Options Attraction has a new Personalise button, for more honing of non-public tastes, and there are lots of additional alternatives for background colors and kinds.

　　Microsoft’s digital hard disk generate supplying SkyDrive currently arrives set up with Windows 8, but Windows Blue contains the choice to back up data files to SkyDrive from in just Windows 8’s Options site, signalling a more in-depth url among program and information put in over the computer and people saved online during the cloud.

　　A new Peaceful Hours function helps you to silence applications throughout pre-set situations this means you might get some rest with out e-mail and Facebook notifications waking you that has a ping.

　　A handful of new purposes come with Windows Blue - an alarm clock, calculator, audio recorder and movie maker - nevertheless the most significant is usually a new version of its Net Explorer world-wide-web browser IE11. This contains the ability to synchronise favorite internet sites and browsing heritage among Home windows 8 equipment.

Twitter, hate speech, and the costs of keeping quiet

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:08 -0400

　　This is a guest column. See below for Greg Lukianoff’s bio.

　　Last month was a bittersweet seventh birthday for Twitter. The Union of Jewish French Students sued the social-media giant for $50 million in a French court in light of anti-Semitic tweets that caried the hashtag #unbonjuif (“a good Jew”). In January, Twitter agreed to delete the tweets, but the student group now wants the identities of the users who sent the anti-Semitic messages so that they can be prosecuted under French law against hate speech. Twitter is resisting. It claims that as an American company protected by the First Amendment, it does not have to aid government efforts to control offensive speech.

　　Internationally, America is considered radical for protecting speech that is highly offensive. But even in the U.S., Twitter should not be surprised to discover ambivalence and even outright hostility toward its principled aversion to censorship, especially in that once great institution for the open exchange of ideas: American higher education.

　　”Hate speech” is constitutionally protected in the United States. But the push against “hurtful” and “blasphemous” speech (primarily speech offensive to Islam) is gaining ground throughout the world. Last fall, for example, when many thought a YouTube video that satirized Mohammed caused a spontaneous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, academics across the country rushed to chide America for its expansive protections of speech. And as someone who has spent more than a decade fighting censorship on American college campuses, I run into antagonism toward free speech on a regular basis, most recently last month, when I spoke at Columbia Law School. After my speech, law professor Frederick Schauer criticized his American colleagues for not being more skeptical about the principle of free speech itself.

　　Forcing hate speech underground by banning it is like taking Xanax for syphilis. You may briefly feel better about your horrible disease, but your sickness will only get worse.

　　This has become a fairly standard refrain, in my experience, as academics who want to limit free speech often paint themselves as a beleaguered, enlightened minority struggling against the unquestioned dogma of free speech. Free speech is certainly alive in U.S. courts. For example, since 1989 more than a dozen courts have declared different politically correct college speech codes unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the idea that hurtful or offensive speech should be banned prevails on American campuses: approximately 63 percent of over 400 top colleges maintain codes (PDF) that violate First Amendment principles. Meanwhile, prominent professors, such as Jeremy Waldron and Richard Delgado, attempt to seize the moral high ground for “enlightened censorship,” and some students even paint themselves as heroes for tearing down campus “free speech walls.”

　　What strikes me about the arguments academics make against free speech is how shallow they tend to be. The critics somehow miss that First Amendment jurisprudence is an extraordinarily thoughtful exposition on what limits are appropriate in a free and diverse society — and, contrary to the meme of America’s mindless approach to speech, there are limits (including, for example, libel, as well as threats or incitement to imminent illegal action).

　　The authors of the Constitution also realized that people — flawed, imperfect humans, with biases, blind spots, shortcomings, and agendas — will decide what speech is and is not acceptable. Part of the wisdom of First Amendment law is that it recognizes that we flawed humans will be tempted to ban speech for no better reason than that officials (or voters) simply dislike or disapprove of an idea or a particular speaker. That’s why First Amendment doctrine forbids the use of highly subjective standards, which would invite arbitrary punishment of dissenters, oddballs, satirists, or the misunderstood. Too many scholars seem to think a robot could simply apply such standards to produce a perfect outcome every time.

　　A common academic argument against free speech relies on the idea that the primary, if not sole, justification for freedom of speech is that it is necessary in order for society to discover “objective truth” — what I will call “Big T” Truth. But now, so the fashionable argument goes, the academy has found that objective truth does not exist, so we are free to regulate harmful, hurtful, or hateful speech because the benefit of unfettered speech — revelation of Truth — is illusory. (A revealing preview of today’s anti-free speech arguments can be found in the oft-overlooked dissent to Yale’s famous 1975 pro-free speech, pro-academic freedom “Woodward Report” [PDF].)

　　No doubt the open, anarchical, epistemological system that was celebrated in the Enlightenment — which Jonathan Rauch dubbed “liberal science” in his classic work on the value of freedom of speech, “Kindly Inquisitors” — has resulted in a flowering of creative and scientific thought. It has helped reveal what we consider to be objective facts (e.g., the Earth is an oblate spheroid; gravity is a fundamental force). But the free exchange of ideas benefits society not only by unearthing “Big T” truths; more importantly, it continually exposes mundane yet important pieces of information about the world. I will call this “Little t” truth. “Little t” truths include: who disagrees about what and why, what people feel about a particular issue, what events the newspapers think are important to report. The fact that “Argo” is a movie is truth, whether or not it represents an accurate view of history, as is the fact that some topics of discussion interest no one, while others are radioactive.

　　Twitter provides a powerful way to view the world. Never before have human beings been able to check the global zeitgeist with such immediacy and on such a massive scale. Its primary service is not to dispense the Platonic ideal of Truth (“the form of beauty = x”), but rather to provide unparalleled access to the peculiar thoughts, ideas, misconceptions, genuine wisdom, fetishes, fads, jokes, obsessions, and problems of a vast sea of people from different cultures, classes, countries, and backgrounds.

　　In order to be an effective mirror to global society, Twitter thinks of itself primarily as a platform and does its best to get out of the way. Therefore, we know things we simply would not know otherwise — from the trivial to the serious. The people who want to scour mass media and cleanse it of all hateful or hurtful opinions miss that their purge would deny us important knowledge. Simply put, it is far better to know that there are bigots among us than to pretend all is well. As Harvey Silverglate, co-founder of FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I serve as president), likes to say, he supports free speech because he thinks it’s important that he know if there’s an anti-Semite in the room so he can make sure not to turn his back to that person.

　　The idea that society achieves something positive by mandating that people with bad opinions must hide them, or discuss them only in forums of the like-minded, is not only extraordinarily naive, it can be dangerous. Bigots driven into echo chambers may only become more extreme, as discussed in Cass Sunstein’s book, “Going to Extremes.” Meanwhile, what does society gain from such quarantining? A coerced but false silence that, if anything at all, plays into the hands of the paranoid and dangerous who already believe that there is a global conspiracy to shut them up. Forcing hate speech underground by banning it is like taking Xanax for syphilis. You may briefly feel better about your horrible disease, but your sickness will only get worse.

　　Simply making bigoted speech illegal results in two distortions of reality. First, it can create an overly rosy picture of public sentiment, thus preventing real and festering social problems from being addressed. Or second, paradoxically, it may lead people to believe that they live in a far less tolerant society than they actually do. John L. Jackson, an anthropology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, teased out this idea in his 2008 book “Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness.” Jackson argues that if a minority group believes that only the threats of formal or informal punishments are preventing people from constantly shouting racial slurs at the top of their lungs, the minority may conclude that those other people are far more hateful and bigoted than they may, in fact, be. In this way, attempts to police hateful or hurtful speech may be making people more paranoid than they need to be about the feelings most people actually hold in their hearts.

　　The only lasting fix to the real problem of racism or anti-Semitism is cultural. A necessarily incomplete attempt to suppress bigotry may well have far worse unintended consequences, as legal regimes that try to ban hate speech drive social resentments underground, thus preventing the right allocation of resources to address social problems openly.

　　Twitter lets us see people as they are — a mixed lot on any given day, to be sure. But it is especially important for a free society to learn not just the good news but the bad news as well.

iPad mini

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:37:33 -0400

iPad mini

IPad mini 2 use Taiwan manufacturers touch panel

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:37:08 -0400

　　United States market-research firm NPD Vice President, DisplaySearch greater China, said David Hsieh Thursday that Apple may be introduced in the next generation iPad mini Taiwan touch panel maker Innolux display, Samsung will not receive this order.

　　Taiwan the Taipei Times quoted Dawei·Xie as saying: “Innolux and shenchao photoelectric upcoming Apple product certification, thus contributing to the iPad mini supply touch panel. ”

　　Earlier this week, Yang Chiu-lien, head of Innolux display touch panel said the company will this year focus on Smartphones and tablet computers, with the goal of shipments during the year a 7-inch screen. Innolux display are currently provided for full size of Apple iPad touch panel.

　　Innolux display touch panel is expected to use “touch-on-display” technology, this technology will help Apple fix the iPhone 5 in the current “in-cell” shows some technical problems.

　　Taiwan DigiTimes website cited Korea media as saying, Samsung Display Apple has yet to make a purchase request, it does not produce such a request in the future. Media suspected, will select from LG Display, sharp, Apple Japan iPad Mini Display and AU Optronics procurement component.

　　While Apple and Samsung in the courts and the fierce competition in the market, but Apple still depend on Samsung offers a variety of components. However, due to the growing threat to Apple by Samsung, Apple has begun to seek diversification of suppliers, so you do not bring profits to competitors while avoiding Samsung knowledge of Apple’s plans.

Smartphone

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:34:56 -0400

Smartphone

Smartphone Users Check Facebook 14 Times a Day

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:34:19 -0400

　　Think you use your phone to look at Facebook a lot? Unless you’re doing it at least 14 times a day, you’re actually below average.

　　That’s just one of the surprising revelations in a research report by IDC released Wednesday. The study tapped 7,446 iPhone and Android users in the U.S. between 18 and 44 — representative of the 50% of the population that uses smartphones — and asked them questions about their phone usage across one week in March.

　　Depending on your perspective, many of the results are either depressing or confirm what you knew all along. For example, it seems that 79% of smartphone users reach for their devices within 15 minutes of waking up. A clear majority — 62% — don’t even wait 15 minutes, and grab their phones immediately. (Among 18-24 year olds, the numbers rise to 89% and 74%.)

　　Given that the survey was sponsored by Facebook, most of the questions focus on the social network. Which is, it seems, only the third most popular app on your smartphone, after email and the browser. Still, 70% of smartphone users are frequent Facebook visitors, with more than half of them checking it every day.

　　Peak Facebook time is during the evening, just before bed. But any time’s good: on average, we visit the Facebook app or the site 13.8 times during the day, for two minutes and 22 seconds each time. Our average total daily mobile time on the site — and remember, this is just via our smartphones — is half an hour.

　　That’s roughly a fifth of all the time we spend communicating; it’s only slightly less time than we spend texting. On weekends, we check Facebook more than we text.

　　Any place seems to be good to check Facebook, too. Some 46% of us check it when we’re shopping or running errands; 48% use it at the gym. Even preparing a meal gives 47% of us no respite from the social network. (Well, what else are you going to do while you’re waiting for the microwave to ping?)

　　Perhaps the most unpardonable sin: 50% of smartphone users admit to checking Facebook while at a movie. We hope they mean only during the ads.

　　So what are we spending all that time doing? Well, for about half of that daily half-hour on the social network, we’re simply browsing our News Feed. The rest of the time is divided fairly evenly between Facebook messaging and posting updates. Half of Facebook users play games via the service on their phone a few times a day.

　　Does the smartphone survey ring true to you? Share your thoughts in the comments.

BlackBerry Z10

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:02:23 -0400

BlackBerry Z10

BlackBerry Z10 greeted with caution; stock drops 8%

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:01:44 -0400

　　Despite its high-profile launch in New York and a TV advertising blitz during March Madness, BlackBerry’s shares tumbled 8%, to $14.91, today. The dip came amid some reports of lackluster consumer reaction at retail stores to the company’s new smartphone.

　　Think having physical buttons on your smartphone isn’t a big deal? Ask any longtime supporter of BlackBerry.

　　With Friday’s launch of the Z10 for AT&T (and Verizon and T-Mobile next week), the smartphone manufacturer marks a major shift in design, swapping its signature keyboard for a full touch-screen.

　　For some current BlackBerry owners such as Stacey Sanner of Seattle, the lack of buttons is a deal-breaker. “If I’m gonna go buttonless, I might as well go iPhone,” says Sanner, who works as a writer and photographer. “I use a Mac and an iPad so it’s time they all talked to each other! This way I can sync contacts and calendar, things people have been doing for years.”

　　Mike Wilson, founder of a film and game production company in Austin, Texas, expressed interest in some of the Z10’s features such as the upgraded camera, but remains hesitant.

　　”I think they did themselves in for good by going to touchscreen only,” says Wilson. “Tactile buttons are absolutely, undeniably better for email and text, and I think they could have kept a lot of their corporate army by just keeping that one thing.”

　　BlackBerry has not abandoned the physical keyboard completely. The company is expected to launch its Q10 smartphone later this spring, incorporating both a touch-screen and keyboard.

　　Not every BlackBerry owner is turned off by a future of tapping and swiping screens. Social worker Jamie Hersh-White checked out the new phones at a BlackBerry Experience event in Chicago, and loves them. “I’m thinking of camping outside my Verizon store just so I can feel the excitement.”

　　Grace Niu of Santa Monica, Calif., is sticking with her BlackBerry Bold but plans to look at the Z10 down the road, even though it has ditched the keyboard. “I am a BlackBerry user and I love my BlackBerry. I don’t know why there is such an intolerance for it. It does what it’s designed to do.”

　　For many BlackBerry loyalists, this is their iPhone moment. At an AT&T store in Emeryville, Harvey Gee, 47, was purchasing a BlackBerry Z10 for his wife, who was stuck at work. Gee, who works near the AT&T store but lives in Castro Valley, said his wife was worried there would be “a run on them” and thought she should get one right away.

　　”She’s a BlackBerry fanatic, so she didn’t even consider an iPhone,” say Gee.

　　The AT&T store, just down the street from an Apple store, had just the one customer, Gee, who said he just walked right up. “No wait,” says Gee. The Apple store nearby was meanwhile buzzing with activity as people tested out iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macbooks.