Subject: Increase iPad Typing Speed By 163 pct.

From: Touchfire: Case and Keyboard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:38:40 -0700

Isnt typing on the iPad the worst?

What if you could add 3D keys on top of your iPad?

And it is attached to a case...

- Type faster and more accurately
- cushioned 3D keys provide long-lasting comfort and ease
- quickly retract Touchfire when you want to use the full iPad screen.
- No batteries or charging required.

View it in Action Here -> http://www.efsnorthboa.com/Apple/iPad/Keyboard/released.video

-
-
-

To stop further notifications - visit http://www.efsnorthboa.com/3ektk/bllws.sw222 - or write Daily Updated Alerts
9306 BOVA CT - L o u i s v i l l e , Kentucky four zero two nine one 

-
-
-
The emulator is really slow. On my 3.6Ghz Core 2 Duo it also takes forever been running this under virtualbox on my overclocked 4.5ghz Core2Duo and its SUPER SLOW. Unusably slow.  2GHz, 4GB RAM - I'm typing this message while waiting for the emulator to run an application I started 15mins ago... I am not sure if it'll run at all. noticed that if I close the emulator at times like that and re-run the debugger it will start faster - it took just 1min now.  greatest part is when you start using OpenGL in your app. You'll get 4 or 5 fps from the emulator MAX, even when it runs at 20fps smoothly on the deviceprocessor with just over a gig of ram is not a very powerful setup, presumably while also running eclipse which can use a huge amount of memory. The emulator does have some speed issues, but your machine isn't helping. does it take to launch? On my computer, it takes between 1min and 1min30s. I run Ubuntu and my machine has got an AMD Dual Core 2.2GHz and 2 Gb RAM. It also sometimes d
 etach itself from Eclipse and cannot be used to launch app anymore for no apparent reason. running on a 2.4Ghz Dual Core Macintosh with 5 Gigs of ram. and it is still uncomfortably slow.... at least it is mildly usable. For people focusing on the Celeron processor, stop... I'm running it on a 2.66GHz Intel Core i7 with 8GB of RAM and it is still unusably slow. Something is wrong with this thing. ee note below on saving snapshots. As for general slowness, keep in mind the emulator is running a large amount of Java code, that's compiling to ARM, that's calling into a software emulated graphics device, all emulated on an x86 desktop OS. I love how fast the iPhone emulator is, but that's because you're compiling your app to x86. Android lets you run it (slowly) exactly how it will run on the device, including all your JNI and ARM NEON. That said, would love a fast pure java 'emulation' environment with the Dalvik VM retargeted to x86, for most people's needs. The best thing to do is to 
 just buy a real device and use that for testing. I did and it made things a million times better.I remember running a palm emulator (dragon ball processor) on a p1 with 256 megs of ram.. by comparison this emulator is so bad it boggles the mind.. That was over 10 years ago.I find this answer to be overly dogmatic. There are times when you just want to apply the JS behavior to 1 or 2 a. In that case it's overkill to define extra CSS and inject a whole JS function. In some cases (e.g. adding content via a CMS) you are actually not allowed to inject new CSS or standalone JS, and inline is all you can do. I don't see how the inline solution is any less maintainable in practice for 1 or 2 simple JS a . Always be suspicious of broad general statements on bad practice, including this one  would make more sense to add 2 classes, one called cancel and the other action, then apply the css only to .action and the javascript only to .action.cancel  disagree here. While I also promote unobtrusiv
 e JavaScript, an anchor that has a "javascript:;" and it's actual events bound somewhere else is not bad practice. And it is always better than leaving the attribute out completely. all those "notes" that are hard to solve (setting a  is asking for trouble on a complex page!). Far better to just do javascript:void(0). That is the pragmatic answer, and the only sensible answer in the real world. you care about making your web application accessible (and you should), simplicity and sanity argues for href. Madness lies in the direction of  href attribute is a problem. Many browsers don't display the link mouse cursor (yes, it can be added in CSS, but this is complicating things already) and I've seen some accessibility software ignore links without href (they are treated as just text). This answer has good ideas but the real world isn't as neat.