And before you mod me troll, remember there are a LOT LOT LOT of apps available -- and people are spending considerable amounts of money on them. They wouldn't be doing that if they were all crap.
Many of these apps fulfill a simple purpose, auto-update themselves, back up themselves automatically, back up your data automatically, and can be shared between devices without repurchasing them. How's your "fat client" app on your netbook do that? It doesn't. Oh, you use a web app? So does an iPad.
I'm getting more than 10 hours per charge out of my iPad, which seems to be the norm. If you think that's "terribly short" perhaps you haven't been using these things we call laptops, which typically get between 3 and 5 hours per charge.
If you actually used an iPad, you would know that setting a bookmark is a single tap, and getting to the list of bookmarks is 2 taps. Hardly a problem. As a matter of fact this feature is one of the things that makes the iPad so much more useful than other readers available today.
To my knowledge, my 2 teenagers (one is 19) have never left the house without their phones, nor have I ever been unable to reach them because their batteries are dead. They have, however, forgotten books and lunches. While I'm sure that there's a nonzero occurrence of these things (depending on the child's responsibility), I think you're overstating the problem.
I've used roughly 1024x768 resolution (or less) all day, every day, for decades. You're telling me that a 1024x768 iPad screen -- which can be zoomed if needed with a simple gesture -- has noticably less resolution than a textbook? It actually has an almost unlimited practical resolution limited only by zoom levels and the resolution of the original content. I've yet to see any limitation for high-res content on an iPad.
I agree especially since there was technology decades ago which allowed very primitive CPU's to animate little blocks in real-time... I'm not sure why it doesn't exist in more "modern" systems. http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Sprite
This model works fine for large business servers where downtime is expensive -- unlock the resources when you grow -- but the audacity of doing this on the x86 platform is fail.
Hmm I thought I was direct enough. Very well then, I will make it clear to you: make this law. Obviously the current system is not working. Until I can wave my fingers and make people smarter, we will need laws to protect the dumbest from themselves. Or we can send them to an island or whatever.
If I could ensure that these violent kids would affect no one but themselves I would be fine with leaving things as-is. But their behaviors affect others, sometimes horrifically, and if we keep going down the road we are on, the future is not pretty.
The efforts of the entertainment industry are pathetic -- each tries to outshock the other. They have learned that violence sells especially to those with lowered sensibilities. As a whole our society is losing what enlightenment we had and is devolving at a rapid pace.
So you would rather pay later, when the damage is already done? You're going to pay either way, and usually it's cheaper to pay for preventative measures.
If you've seen the current generation, and spent any time with them, surely you have to agree that these games are part of the problem. Dehumanizing killing, I've seen elementary school kids playing some of these games. It starts to affect them at an early age.
I'm hoping a law will prompt the parents to think more before purchasing it for their kids.
I usually consider myself very much against the government telling me how to do anything. However, I think in this case I'd agree with preventing a minor from purchasing the product. That allows a minor who really wants an adult product to have a parent purchase it for them -- it's not "illegal" to own, it just stops kids from purchasing potentially harmful things. It goes along with the policy of not allowing children to purchase beer, cigarettes, adult magazines or toys, certain weapons, etc.
Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian? I think the harm these games can do to the children is irreparable -- not that it happens in every case. I'm old enough now to see how different my kids behave when compared with other kids who were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games. Some of the other kids frankly scare me.
I'm not seeing it, and I run Firefox sometimes for a week at a time. I use multiple tabs, I use Slashdot (obviously) and other Javascript-heavy sites, the only thing I *don't* do is run Flash games in the browser since it beats up my machine.
Now if you want to talk about RAM leaks, X11 under OSX Tiger and now Snow Leopard is a great example of that. I use it daily.
System info: I always run the latest beta/stable Firefox. Snow Leopard. Core2Duo 2.4 2007 Macbook Pro. 4 GB RAM. I usually have Parallels with 1 or 2 VM's, X11, Firefox, Thunderbird, a few Terminal sessions, etc open (I don't use just one thing at a time, and several of these eat memory like crazy).
I forgot to mention that my other 3G device is a Sprint aircard (Merlin EX720) and I use it as my primary connection when I'm home. I've never had Slashdot lock up my machine, although I have had problems with Flash sites (high CPU, fans going crazy, Firefox lockups etc). Current Firefox version I'm using is 4.0b5 on Snow Leopard if that helps; I always run the latest beta/stable.
Huh? I use my iPhone (3GS / iOS4.1) to browse and post on Slashdot, and it's not bad. It's not as easy as using a larger screen and a real keyboard, but it's usable.
If I were to complain about something, I have 2 issues
the "preview" and "cancel" buttons overlap half their height, so that you have to zoom in to make sure to hit the correct one. I think that's more of an issue with the width of the screen and how far I zoom in.
The threads are indented. While this works very well on a regular screen, it means once you reach a level beyond 3 or 4 indents you start seeing one word per line, and anything after that is unusable.
Interesting that I'm also on a Core2Duo (2.4), but it's a 1997 MacBook Pro on Snow Leopard running Firefox 4.0b5, and the difference is large. I got Total: 14464.8ms +/- 0.8%
Because I'd already started my work for the day, I was running it with 6 other tabs open, Parallels running an XP VM, X11 with a couple of remote desktops running etc. Haven't read enough to see if any of that matters.
Don't lump "servers in a data center" in with a physical distribution network. The cost of maintaining servers and their associated HR costs is very small in comparison [to all the other costs], and getting smaller. If I can rent a movie for $1 at any RedBox or BlockBuster Express, I expect it to be even less by downloading it directly. And in some cases (NetFlix, Hulu) it IS cheaper.
The old-style physical content distribution model is dead.
And as far as content creation costs go, it appears a lot of popular / decent movies were created without huge budgets. More and more people are creating their own movies on a shoestring. The tables are tipping from "we provide what we want you to see" to amateur-provided content, and guess who doesn't like it? <tiny violins play softly>
Slashdot Mirror
Well the solution is obvious, either encode logins into the apps or use web apps which contain logins. Pretty simple, actually.
A netbook can't run apps from the Apple store.
And before you mod me troll, remember there are a LOT LOT LOT of apps available -- and people are spending considerable amounts of money on them. They wouldn't be doing that if they were all crap.
Many of these apps fulfill a simple purpose, auto-update themselves, back up themselves automatically, back up your data automatically, and can be shared between devices without repurchasing them. How's your "fat client" app on your netbook do that? It doesn't. Oh, you use a web app? So does an iPad.
I'm getting more than 10 hours per charge out of my iPad, which seems to be the norm. If you think that's "terribly short" perhaps you haven't been using these things we call laptops, which typically get between 3 and 5 hours per charge.
If you actually used an iPad, you would know that setting a bookmark is a single tap, and getting to the list of bookmarks is 2 taps. Hardly a problem. As a matter of fact this feature is one of the things that makes the iPad so much more useful than other readers available today.
To my knowledge, my 2 teenagers (one is 19) have never left the house without their phones, nor have I ever been unable to reach them because their batteries are dead. They have, however, forgotten books and lunches. While I'm sure that there's a nonzero occurrence of these things (depending on the child's responsibility), I think you're overstating the problem.
I've used roughly 1024x768 resolution (or less) all day, every day, for decades. You're telling me that a 1024x768 iPad screen -- which can be zoomed if needed with a simple gesture -- has noticably less resolution than a textbook? It actually has an almost unlimited practical resolution limited only by zoom levels and the resolution of the original content. I've yet to see any limitation for high-res content on an iPad.
Thanks for the links -- I was missing the .edu site.
... and it used to be 90%. There's been a large shift to other browsers over the past few years. That is significant.
I agree especially since there was technology decades ago which allowed very primitive CPU's to animate little blocks in real-time... I'm not sure why it doesn't exist in more "modern" systems. http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Sprite
This model works fine for large business servers where downtime is expensive -- unlock the resources when you grow -- but the audacity of doing this on the x86 platform is fail.
Hmm I thought I was direct enough. Very well then, I will make it clear to you: make this law. Obviously the current system is not working. Until I can wave my fingers and make people smarter, we will need laws to protect the dumbest from themselves. Or we can send them to an island or whatever.
If I could ensure that these violent kids would affect no one but themselves I would be fine with leaving things as-is. But their behaviors affect others, sometimes horrifically, and if we keep going down the road we are on, the future is not pretty.
The efforts of the entertainment industry are pathetic -- each tries to outshock the other. They have learned that violence sells especially to those with lowered sensibilities. As a whole our society is losing what enlightenment we had and is devolving at a rapid pace.
+1 Insightful. Thanks for "getting it". My sentiments exactly.
So you would rather pay later, when the damage is already done? You're going to pay either way, and usually it's cheaper to pay for preventative measures.
If you've seen the current generation, and spent any time with them, surely you have to agree that these games are part of the problem. Dehumanizing killing, I've seen elementary school kids playing some of these games. It starts to affect them at an early age.
I'm hoping a law will prompt the parents to think more before purchasing it for their kids.
Another thing... TCO.
I'll second that, marry her.
I usually consider myself very much against the government telling me how to do anything. However, I think in this case I'd agree with preventing a minor from purchasing the product. That allows a minor who really wants an adult product to have a parent purchase it for them -- it's not "illegal" to own, it just stops kids from purchasing potentially harmful things. It goes along with the policy of not allowing children to purchase beer, cigarettes, adult magazines or toys, certain weapons, etc.
Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian? I think the harm these games can do to the children is irreparable -- not that it happens in every case. I'm old enough now to see how different my kids behave when compared with other kids who were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games. Some of the other kids frankly scare me.
+1 Informative. This is great advice if you're seeing memory leakage under Firefox.
I'm not seeing it, and I run Firefox sometimes for a week at a time. I use multiple tabs, I use Slashdot (obviously) and other Javascript-heavy sites, the only thing I *don't* do is run Flash games in the browser since it beats up my machine.
Now if you want to talk about RAM leaks, X11 under OSX Tiger and now Snow Leopard is a great example of that. I use it daily.
System info: I always run the latest beta/stable Firefox. Snow Leopard. Core2Duo 2.4 2007 Macbook Pro. 4 GB RAM. I usually have Parallels with 1 or 2 VM's, X11, Firefox, Thunderbird, a few Terminal sessions, etc open (I don't use just one thing at a time, and several of these eat memory like crazy).
I forgot to mention that my other 3G device is a Sprint aircard (Merlin EX720) and I use it as my primary connection when I'm home. I've never had Slashdot lock up my machine, although I have had problems with Flash sites (high CPU, fans going crazy, Firefox lockups etc). Current Firefox version I'm using is 4.0b5 on Snow Leopard if that helps; I always run the latest beta/stable.
If I were to complain about something, I have 2 issues
Sorry for ranting.
Aarrrghhh 2007 not 1997. It took me so long fighting with Slashdot's "junk" filter that I didn't proofread thoroughly.
Interesting that I'm also on a Core2Duo (2.4), but it's a 1997 MacBook Pro on Snow Leopard running Firefox 4.0b5, and the difference is large. I got
Total: 14464.8ms +/- 0.8%
Because I'd already started my work for the day, I was running it with 6 other tabs open, Parallels running an XP VM, X11 with a couple of remote desktops running etc. Haven't read enough to see if any of that matters.
...to break Windows.
Don't lump "servers in a data center" in with a physical distribution network. The cost of maintaining servers and their associated HR costs is very small in comparison [to all the other costs], and getting smaller. If I can rent a movie for $1 at any RedBox or BlockBuster Express, I expect it to be even less by downloading it directly. And in some cases (NetFlix, Hulu) it IS cheaper.
The old-style physical content distribution model is dead.
And as far as content creation costs go, it appears a lot of popular / decent movies were created without huge budgets. More and more people are creating their own movies on a shoestring. The tables are tipping from "we provide what we want you to see" to amateur-provided content, and guess who doesn't like it? <tiny violins play softly>
Yes, I also tried Minefield. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0b6pre) Gecko/20100912 Firefox/4.0b6pre
Still 1-2 fps.
This is on a 2007 MacBook Pro, 4 GB RAM, GeForce 8600M GT (has 256MB dedicated memory) at 1440x900 on a single display.
Good luck in your new job!
And yet OS X and Linux systems don't have any viruses. You're splitting hairs and missing the point. Results speak volumes.