(Posts: 452; Member since: 14 Mar 2011)
If this is missing Flash support and isn't a Retina display, I'm not buying it...
(Posts: 617; Member since: 04 Sep 2011)
ok but if you buy an iphone you may not use your shiny gadget to make phone call (unless you have a bumper maybe)
so in case of emergency you can just pray your iphone starts to explode and burn so its smoke may be noticed by rescue
(Posts: 6536; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
You just got rick-trolled. He mentioned flash support, so he's obviously not an iPhone user. More likely, he was poking fun at all the fanboys on each side of the aisle.
Actually, it is a wonderful logic statement...
IF NO (Flash) AND NO (Retina display), THEN NO (purchase)...
Essentially this logic statement allows the proclaimer to purchase any smartphone except Windows Phone models and older iPhones before the iPhone 4. Any Android, BlackBerry, or bada phone is safe (thanks to the presence of Flash support), and any new iPhone (4 or 4S) is safe (thanks to the Retina display).
(Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
your logic is flawed. your statement is inclusive. it has to have flash AND retina display,not OR. there are displays like that out there. LG's top android phones (had to find in the states) use retina displays and use flash support.
so, no iphone ever, or anything else... except a minor few android phones fit that bill.
lool remix i was thinking the same thing! :P
It wasa pretty good joke though.
oh remix... I like you a lot, but today you are in error, my friend...
The statement has actually been presented, in Boolean form, as a pair of input states and one output state. The first input, Flash status, is 1 for yes and 0 for no. The second input, presence of Retina display, is 1 for yes and 0 for no. Both inputs each pass through a NOR gate... thus, they get switched from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0. They then enter the AND gate at the center of this arguement... an AND gate requires that both direct inputs be a 1 in order to generate a direct output of 1... otherwise, you get a 0. The direct output then goes into an additional NOR gate, which switches the direct output into the final output, which is the result of the statement.
Thus, despite the AND, it is, in fact, exclusive, thanks to the NOR gates on each end. If you have no Flash (0) and no Retina display (0), then the result is no purchase (0). If you have Flash (1) but no Retina display (0), then the result is actually a purchase (1). If you have no Flash (0), but do have a Retina display (1), then the result is still a purchase (1). If you have both Flash (1) and a Retina display (1), then obviously it is a purchase (1). Thus, wumberpeb has not ruled out as many phones as you thought he did, and thus his statement makes a lot more sense, and in my opinion is quite entertaining...
"If this is missing (NOR) Flash support (INPUT) AND isn't (NOR) a Retina display (INPUT), I'm not (NOR) buying it (OUTPUT)..."
This could also have been rephrased as, "If this has Flash support OR has a Retina display, I'll buy it...", and would have had the same result, but the previous form allows for the entire expression to be negatively qualified, which then switches the emphasis and makes more sense in relation to the survivalist phone in this article.
think about it...
(Posts: 191; Member since: 29 Dec 2011)
I love that you went through all of that for such a silly thing. I completely approve. And while I have taken many computer programming classes, I can appreciate this. But I have also taken many english classes, about 12 years worth, and I think remix had it right the first time. He is saying that a phone must have both identifiers for him to buy it, not only one
Well, in that case, this may simply be a matter of interpretation. Perhaps the original poster could clarify?
I guess to put what you said simply:
no Flash AND no Retina Display = no Buy
no (no Flash AND no Retina Display) = no (no Buy)
Flash OR Retina Display = Buy
That would be the logical way of handling it. But through simple English interpretation, most readers would understand that statement as "Will buy only if phone has both flash and retina display".
Just my 2cents..
galaxy nexus as flash and retina display
(Posts: 1428; Member since: 29 Dec 2011)
great phone for your bunker during world war 3
(Posts: 8; Member since: 20 Oct 2011)
winder how they tested the thing to be 15 years long :l
(Posts: 100; Member since: 24 Nov 2011)
Sorry did not want to give a a down actually wanted to reply. They would have estimated the 15 years long battery time with the ration of battery drainage with the limited time say few hours, days or weeks. To estimate thousand years of distance between earth and other planets, scientists do not need to actually travel thousands of years :)
(Posts: 100; Member since: 24 Nov 2011)
forgive my bad English plz.
Raza is correct... this estimation method is often referred to as "interpolation". It depends on the linearity of the behavior in question; in this case, the decline in battery potential over time is probably the indicator they go by, and although battery potential definitely does not decline linearly over its entire useful life, I am sure that someone has taken the typical voltage decline path into account. All told, 15 years is insanely impressive, almost to the point of being hard to believe... but I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Uh oh.. it's white.
Prepare for a lawsuit from Krapple.
(Posts: 722; Member since: 09 Sep 2009)
But they didn't say what the contract cost would be ...
I doubt any carrier will bother with this... Xpal will probably sell it unlocked in every WalMart, RadioShack, and who-knows-what-else for full retail.
Being able to use AA batteries to power a basic GSM phone could be a useful resource in the coming apocalypse... provided that no one unleashes an EMP weapon over the continental US at any time during the process...
Cheap SpareOne phone will run for 15 years on single AA battery, perfect for emergencies