Spontaneous does not mean instantly or quickly, it means something happening with no apparent cause or external cause, or someone doing something involuntarily. The action doesn't have to be over quickly.
I'm sure it knows full well most of its suits are sheer garbage that ultimately will fail.
In the meantime, they lose loyalty from potential customers who notice that they're now more interested in filing lawsuits than producing a good product. There has been a marked increase in Apple's willingness to sue over the last year or so as Jobs was eased out, and I expect that to continue, as the company starts to be run by suits who are interested in squeezing money out of customers, rather than someone who was interested purely in producing something insanely great.
Shame really as they were the only company with a consistent focus on good design in both hardware and software. They need someone to step in and stop the madness (e.g. suing HTC to try to block their products because they look similar, WTF!), and focus on creating the next generation of products, which their competitors haven't even seen yet - that is where the real money lies, not in chasing after competitors producing knock-offs of last year's hit product. This is not a game Apple can win, but as you say, the lawyers will bleed them dry.
I do that, but now realize it's pretty much pointless since I don't use e-mail for any personal correspondence anyways, unless it's my work e-mail. Do people still actually use e-mail outside of work ?
Yes, most of the world still uses email. Out of curiosity, what do you use instead?
The elephant in the room here is that they often have no idea how much loss they could potentially suffer, particularly in a turbulent market - some of these products like etfs and cds are so abstract and so opaque no-one really knows what they represent or what risk is involved. Sometimes the complexity is created deliberately in order to dupe buyers - as with mortgages bundled into so-called AAA tranches. All the risk models are based on a normal efficient market AND the risk models were designed by the banks, not by some independent authority. The pressure is *always* there to take bigger risks or disguise risks or push the risk off on some other sucker, and when risky moves go well it is massively rewarded. Hedging risks is expensive and no doubt he felt the pressure not to do so, and may not even have been able to say how much risk he was taking.
And most of all, he probably "tells it how it is" and whistles at women as they go by.
You don't know any bankers, do you? It does not take great intelligence to be a trader and misogyny is widespread within the industry.
The good news is that Mr. Banker pays for most of Mr. Construction Worker's public services - probably including the public works project that Mr. Construction worker uses to feed his family when the recession hits.
The bad news is Mr. Banker pays for his services with money extorted from the taxpayer (in many cases). Arguing about who initially pays and is therefore a 'wealth producer' is really a circular debate.
You even then go on to admit that for reading, e-readers are better. So then why even post an argument to the sentence you quoted, "who wants an e-reader without an e-ink display?"
I said 'if all you want to do is read novels' eink is better. For all the other forms of reading and writing I do, and because I don't only want to read novels, I prefer a tablet. That's not to say that e-readers are inferior or useless, but they are only really useful for one particular kind of reading, and the majority of reading and writing nowadays goes on on the web, not in novels, plus in addition to text-only books I like a few books which have images, are more interactive, some magazines, etc. Thus I compared both, and chose a tablet. I also read books on my phone, and would consider that an ereader too, but prefer a bigger screen when not travelling.
I'd suggest that most people buying a tablet do so because it is a good ereader, among other things. Just because it does other things too doesn't mean that is not one of its primary functions.
If you wish you are welcome to compare only eink devices to other eink devices, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world chooses another tech to do their reading on because they have other priorities. The fact that *you* dont consider them comparable matters little to those of us who do.
Nope, you have to add HTML and CSS to arrive at AJAX.;)
I wonder why so many people who have no idea what they are talking about seem to think AJAX is required for this?
AJAX has nothing to do with CSS. AJAX is the use of javascript to make remote calls to a server and use the data returned (usually json, xml or html fragments) to populate the parts of the page without reloading the entire page. It does not require HTML and CSS, though it usually goes with an HTML page.
Hiding a facebook like button until clicked does not require AJAX.
People who buy iPads (currently massively outselling kindles) and use them to read books, and the net, and watch videos etc. apparently do.
The display is such a vital part of the experience!
For you. For most people, the disadvantages of an e-ink display outweigh the advantages. That's why more people buy tablets. I'm not sure why e-ink aficionados constantly insist that they can't be compared to a tablet - the two devices do similar things in different ways. They are both good in their own way, and yes they are (for many people) comparable. On some things tablets lose in this comparison (battery life, display in sunlight), but on many other things e-ink devices lose out (colour, response time, resolution, which leads to touch screens and the ability to function as a mini-computer). It's really just a matter of what you want it for - if you just want it for reading novels, an e-ink device definitely wins, if you want to do other stuff (argue on forums about the relative worths of eink and lcd for example), a tablet wins.
If I wanted to stare at a light bulb, I'd just read on the computer. Here's hoping Amazon doesn't abandon the tried-and-true e-ink display.
I doubt very much they'll abandon eink in their cheaper models for years to come. Perhaps they never will if the tech improves and gains colour and a decent refresh rate (though inevitably that'd bring it closer to lcd in power draw). In the meantime, you can enjoy cheaper eink kindles, what's not to like?
Nonetheless, for the majority of users of either device, they're not in the same category. As yourself this: Are Kindles selling (and they are, extremely well) because:
I'd add another reason to your list -
They have a huge backlist of content in the store which comes with the device
That's something key to the success of both the kindle and the iPad, and I'd say it's at least as important than the screen and explains their success over rivals. The iPad has been massively outselling the kindle, so either people who buy iPads just didn't consider kindles, or they considered them and found them wanting, mostly because of the feature that defines them - the eink screen. I suspect it's the latter, but it is hard to know. I do think these devices directly compete (except on price) for most customers, as most people are not looking for a single-function gadget. Just as mobile phones with GPS have gradually replaced single-function GPS handhelds, a similar thing is happening with tablets and single-function readers.
When Amazon releases a colour kindle based on Android, we will have a good way to compare the two types of device with very similar customers buying them - I suspect you'll find the colour version vastly outsells the eink, even amongst those buying to read books. They won't do a combo colour/b&w device because of cost - they'll keep the low-end eink device as the cheap option for at least a few years - after that, because it is useless for surfing the internet (and for that reason alone), I suspect it'll be retired.
That's great. For me it's the only selling point of the kindle, and everything else (slow response, clunky keyboard, no touchscreen, no video, no colour, no apps, etc) counts against it when compared with a tablet. 8 hours is good enough for battery life, though days or weeks would be great, however it is not essential (for me). I'm much happier reading on a tablet than an eink device, partly because I can access much more content ( on the web). I suspect if amazon had not backed eink it would be niche already, but I will be interested to see how long they continue with the eink readers when they have an LCD device as well, and how the sales compare.
Perhaps not for you, but for many people they are in the same category. I don't particularly want eink and compared both when looking at reading devices (and yes I have tried reading with both).
I'm writing this on an LCD tablet which, unlike a kindle, is useful for reading the web, watching video etc. When I decided on an ereader, using the web and email were also important to me and eyestrain was not an issue ( I use LCDs all day, so do you probably). I also read a few chapters of a book on it this morning - I haven't experienced the mythical 'LCD eyestrain' that people often attribute to LCD ereaders, and for me a multipurpose device is a much better fit than an eink device because the trade offs with eink are just huge - the refresh rate is too low and they are useless for anything but reading a simple novel. Another factor was that, as you say, the design on the kindle is abysmal.
So for many people the two devices directly compete, and LCD loses on battery life but wins on everything else.
As to amazon I expect them to move to android for a colour device and bundle their android software and own market - anything else is a huge ongoing investment for very little gain. They will probably undercut competitors too so you may get your wish, minus stuff like hdmi which will not go into early tablets.
I would be asking to see the facebook profile of anyone trying to get into the group and if they don't have one or their profile only goes back a few months I would be extremely suspicious.
So you'd only recruit idiots who have a Facebook profile - smart move for a clandestine organisation!
And as to your analogies, in most cases people do pay tens of millions of dollars for paintings for the original, physical copy. Reproductions, even masterfully done ones, are only ever worth a fraction of the piece.
You're focussing on the wrong part of the analogy. I didn't say originals of paintings were worth less than digital copies, I said the information encoded was what transformed relatively worthless materials into something valuable (of variable value depending on the artist, market, etc, act). Just as the information in a given set of bits could make it worth more than another set of bits (as when you buy software online, you are buying information, or, if you prefer a license to use information (if you happen to believe click-through license agreements have some validity)).
The difference is that a great painting, the print issue of a great novel, and the original stamping of a great music album cannot be exactly duplicated. An arrangement of 1s and 0s can be exactly duplicated such that the copy is indistinguishable from the original. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but that does mean selling it in such a way that it is "the only copy in existence" is downright silly. If it's so great, you'll make a lot more money copying it and selling it cheaply until everyone has one.
Yes of course there are differences, and some physical objects are hard to duplicate but that doesn't make them inherently more valuable, except as trophies.
These originals are already artefacts of another age in the case of novels and music albums - new productions are increasingly only released as information, not as physical artefacts. I was asserting that digital information (order) has value; something converted to digital information does not immediately become as valueless as random bits, as the OP asserted. It may be easier to copy, but that doesn't diminish its intrinsic value as information - as you say it just changes the equation when selling it as to production cost versus sale price, and makes it hard to artificially limit supply (though not impossible). The information still has value which is unrelated to any particular manifestation of that information (in print, on CD, on hard disk, on a server in the sky etc).
Or like Enron paying for a triple A rating 4 days before their collapse? Companies like Enron pay for their rating from supposedly impartial ratings agencies who have been handed a monopoly on rating by the US gov and allowed to charge the people they are rating money for supplying that rating. S&P and the other rating agencies are now steeped in corruption, and have been since they started taking money for their ratings - they are definitely not an innocent party calling it as they see it I'm afraid, they are as corrupt as any of the players in this game.
That's not to say they are wrong on the US debt - the US probably doesn't deserve an AAA rating, as the default by stealth which is induced inflation and QE is full speed ahead already, meaning that creditors in the rest of the world are being bilked to preserve the US in the style to which it has become accustomed. However S&P calling the US gov at this point in time is more likely a play to get kickbacks or favours from major clients like goldman sachs tipped off prior to the downgrade than a drive for truth - the ratings agencies haven't produced an honest rating in decades.
Hey look, these are your VERY OWN 1's and 0's! We are taking painstaking measures to make sure that absolutely NOBODY ELSE has this same arrangement of 1's and 0's. Sure, we could randomly generate them and then check them by md5 sum against all other files in our database, but NO, we design them JUST FOR YOU!
A great painting is simply an arrangement of inexpensive paint on canvas, a great novel is simply familiar words rearranged on a page, great music is simply the same notes rearranged, and great software is simply 1s and 0s (NB *never* a random collection of bits). Yet somehow all these things are valued above mediocre paintings, novels and software, and people are willing to pay for certain arrangements of 1s and 0s, not because they are stupid, and all 1s and 0s are the same value, but because particular arrangements of information are valuable.
As we move the boundaries of our world to encompass more of the virtual than the real, information will become increasingly valuable, not less valuable. Digital information is also easier to copy than real-life encodings of information, which forms an interesting counterpoint, but that doesn't mean that 1s and 0s are inherently value-less or that any arrangement of them is the same as any other. Quite the reverse - it is becoming more and more clear that information (or order if you prefer) in and of itself has value, entirely independent of the physical world.
So HP is jettisoning all of the things that made it HP two years ago and just focusing on the stuff they got when they bought Palm?
No, they are jettisoning all of the consumer side of the business, and focussing on business hardware and services, which potentially have a much higher return (if you are not competent at selling to consumers). Not necessarily a bad move if they can execute, though their nonsense about licensing WebOS does imply they don't have a clue.
Killing WebOS hardware kills WebOS - there is no way they will license it (who in their right mind would license tech that has no traction and has been a failure for the licensor?!??), and therefore no way they will make money on it. So they are not focussing on the stuff from Palm at all, they are killing it.
A real shame about WebOS, as it was one of the nicer mobile OSs, and all we will have left is iOS, Android and WinPhone (or whatever it is called these days).
You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.
You're the only one bringing up the Daily Mail, says something about you and your prejudices I suppose, but it really is not the stinging rebuke you seem to imagine.
I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.
You really do seem completely divorced from reality - have you ever lived on an estate? Have you any idea what life is like? If not I suggest you do and see how far your 'good example' gets you - it really would be an education for you. Some people are selfish, violent and beyond redemption (at least in the short term) - to deal with them we need prisons and the force of law, or there will be no public space left in which to build a functioning, comfortable and happy environment. Among those people I would class looters - perhaps you'd like to have them as neighbours, but personally I would not.
Encouraging people to lead a happy and comfortable life (by providing opportunities and education) comes after society's rules have been enforced by the rule of law. We can argue over the benefits and costs of both, but one cannot function without the other, and stealing playstations and attacking innocents are not an acceptable form of expression, no matter how frustrated or downtrodden teaching assistants are feeling.
None but the last explain simultaneous peaceful protests, subsequent riots and following looting across the country.
There was one peaceful and justified protest in Tottenham, the rest is just looting and anarchy because they think they'll get away with it. The violence is completely unrelated to one man's death - see the multiple interviews with looters which prove this. Remarkable how you justify all this violence and stealing with 'peaceful protest' because it fits your wold view. Do you have any sympathy for those who have been burned out of their homes, and shopkeepers who have lost their livelihood, who you apparently consider collateral damage, or is all of your sympathy for the scum who are doing the burning?
What if I start a war and that war involves bombing shops and killing its owners?
That war would be wrong, illegal and a waste of money and life, like most wars in history. It would also have nothing to do with riots. Nice try.
Civilised society would expect its police force to stop you by using means only in proportion to the threat you cause. If you want violent retribution, please move to the Middle East - you sound like you'd be most welcome.
i.e. violence is met with violence. I said nothing about retribution, and I don't wish you to leave my country, just that you would grow up and face the real issues here instead of hiding behind your off-the-shelf lefty opinions. Stop and think for yourself for once instead of spouting platitudes.
You speak, evidently, like someone who hasn't actually had it tough and who assumes that all people need is a small handout in order to live a safe, happy life.
You speak like someone who is happy making assumptions without any sort of evidence, so long as they reinforce your ossified world view.
In our society in over to find useful employment and have a decent standard of living all people need is a positive attitude, some luck, and the little bit of help from society (which society provides, in an imperfect way) - their background is of course going to determine a lot of their life unless they are remarkable - like most people and most places in history, that's a very hard problem to crack, and no-one has done it yet, but they *can* escape it, even if in some small way, and they are encouraged to do so. No-one starves unless they have other issues, no-one goes without a home for long (run-down as much of our public housing is, it is still a roof over your head), and it is possible to get a job in most circumstances, even if you have to leave where you live and move (as I did). I'm not saying I agree with cutting this safety net even further, or that it is universally fair, but that is completely unrelated to the issue of whether people should be allowed to riot and loot to express themselves. PS I've been on the dole, and I know life isn't easy, another assumption completely wrong. I'm well aware of the limitations of the safety net, and how it is being dismantled - I'm also aware there is a culture of lawlessness and selfish exploitation in our country (at both ends of the social scale) which needs to be stamped out. There are plenty of things that need fixed in our welfare state, without dismantling it, and many of the cuts this gov. has started are ideological and unneeded, but your pontifications and religion of dependence do nothing to help this problem, quite the reverse.
Go back to your Daily Mail and thank working society for building and running the civilisation which keeps you in comfort.
I don't read the daily mail (it's full of puerile rubbish and bad writing, much like the guardian), don't use the word nigger, and consider looters scum (of all races and backgrounds, many are not black). Funny how your assumptions are universally wrong isn't it? Perhaps you should examine some of your other thoughtless opinions as well. I do find it interesting
Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence.
Well, that can be one reason. Here's some other reasons people resort to violence:
* They don't think at all and don't really give a shit, they just like the buzz * They think it's not really doing any harm to anyone they know, so why should they care? * They are greedy and want stuff without any effort, and violence seems like a good way to get it * They think they will get away with it, so why not? * They are sociopaths (see above - common emotions felt by sociopaths) * They have grown up in a violent community and it is the only way to get by
None of that really supports your silly 'class struggle' assertion though does it?
Additionally, a riot is not a protest, stealing is not a protest, arson of shops and homes is not a protest, looting is not a protest, and it should be treated completely differently - if you start looting and burning shops, I'm afraid different rules apply, and you can expect to be treated harshly and to experience violence in your turn from those you threaten. The police have been remarkably lenient, many in the UK would say far too lenient.
And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong?
So what is housing benefit, unemployment benefit, free schooling, free medical care, if not help? What a washed-out tired excuse of an argument - it's all the environment's fault, and the poor little rioters could do nothing to save themselves. These people have had plenty of help, and have chosen to reject the society they live in - there should be consequences for that, or we won't have a society at all in the end, just a free for all. Everyone in the UK has the right to judge the scum doing the rioting, and they do judge them harshly - let's hope the courts agree.
Yes they are wrong, and so is RIM for handing over the private communications of their subscribers to a third party.
If the third party is the police or government, and their customers are breaking the law in an obvious way using BBM to communicate, I don't have a problem with that - do you?
One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.
Don't know where you're from, but round here breaking into shops and looting is not 'protesting'.
Re your bullshit about overstepping a line - the only ones doing that are those burning cars, assaulting innocent passers by, and throwing petrol bombs into neighbourhood shops.
The Dow is rising and falling in time with these huge injections of newly minted electronic cash, and all that money has to go somewhere - it's causing huge fluctuations in global asset and commodity values, and consequent crashes when it is withdrawn. It could be argued that it is making things worse, not better, and it is certainly causing higher inflation.
In 10 years time $1000 will be worth less, and quite possibly close to worthless. The only other way out is to grow the economy huge amounts while under pressure from significantly cheaper or more efficient competitors (China, SE Asia etc), pull out of all those incredibly expensive foreign wars and foreign military bases, or default. Inflating their way out of it is the easiest way for the politicians.
Your suggested solution (moving js outside the document) would make no difference to security.
The issue is that a program like word needs to execute code (formats like PDF, macros, code to manipulate the document) which leaves it open to attacks so that code needs to be properly sandboxed, ideally in a separate process as has been popularised by chrome and more recently web kit. That has nothing to do with where the js etc resides in the document, which from a security point of view, doesn't really matter.
So long as there is an option for disabling js completely on read, and sand boxing it fully when it is turned on ( something browsers have been doing for years) moving to js and HTML would not make office any less secure, and possibly more secure as rendering js and HTML is a well understood problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Spontaneous does not mean instantly or quickly, it means something happening with no apparent cause or external cause, or someone doing something involuntarily. The action doesn't have to be over quickly.
I'm sure it knows full well most of its suits are sheer garbage that ultimately will fail.
In the meantime, they lose loyalty from potential customers who notice that they're now more interested in filing lawsuits than producing a good product. There has been a marked increase in Apple's willingness to sue over the last year or so as Jobs was eased out, and I expect that to continue, as the company starts to be run by suits who are interested in squeezing money out of customers, rather than someone who was interested purely in producing something insanely great.
Shame really as they were the only company with a consistent focus on good design in both hardware and software. They need someone to step in and stop the madness (e.g. suing HTC to try to block their products because they look similar, WTF!), and focus on creating the next generation of products, which their competitors haven't even seen yet - that is where the real money lies, not in chasing after competitors producing knock-offs of last year's hit product. This is not a game Apple can win, but as you say, the lawyers will bleed them dry.
I do that, but now realize it's pretty much pointless since I don't use e-mail for any personal correspondence anyways, unless it's my work e-mail. Do people still actually use e-mail outside of work ?
Yes, most of the world still uses email. Out of curiosity, what do you use instead?
In the case of a police officer taking a bribe - we'd expect police to be properly regulated, not shut down.
Why are the banks so resistant to regulation? No one is suggesting shutting them down but they should see far stricter regulation.
The elephant in the room here is that they often have no idea how much loss they could potentially suffer, particularly in a turbulent market - some of these products like etfs and cds are so abstract and so opaque no-one really knows what they represent or what risk is involved. Sometimes the complexity is created deliberately in order to dupe buyers - as with mortgages bundled into so-called AAA tranches. All the risk models are based on a normal efficient market AND the risk models were designed by the banks, not by some independent authority. The pressure is *always* there to take bigger risks or disguise risks or push the risk off on some other sucker, and when risky moves go well it is massively rewarded. Hedging risks is expensive and no doubt he felt the pressure not to do so, and may not even have been able to say how much risk he was taking.
And most of all, he probably "tells it how it is" and whistles at women as they go by.
You don't know any bankers, do you? It does not take great intelligence to be a trader and misogyny is widespread within the industry.
The good news is that Mr. Banker pays for most of Mr. Construction Worker's public services - probably including the public works project that Mr. Construction worker uses to feed his family when the recession hits.
The bad news is Mr. Banker pays for his services with money extorted from the taxpayer (in many cases). Arguing about who initially pays and is therefore a 'wealth producer' is really a circular debate.
You even then go on to admit that for reading, e-readers are better. So then why even post an argument to the sentence you quoted, "who wants an e-reader without an e-ink display?"
I said 'if all you want to do is read novels' eink is better. For all the other forms of reading and writing I do, and because I don't only want to read novels, I prefer a tablet. That's not to say that e-readers are inferior or useless, but they are only really useful for one particular kind of reading, and the majority of reading and writing nowadays goes on on the web, not in novels, plus in addition to text-only books I like a few books which have images, are more interactive, some magazines, etc. Thus I compared both, and chose a tablet. I also read books on my phone, and would consider that an ereader too, but prefer a bigger screen when not travelling.
I'd suggest that most people buying a tablet do so because it is a good ereader, among other things. Just because it does other things too doesn't mean that is not one of its primary functions.
If you wish you are welcome to compare only eink devices to other eink devices, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world chooses another tech to do their reading on because they have other priorities. The fact that *you* dont consider them comparable matters little to those of us who do.
Nope, you have to add HTML and CSS to arrive at AJAX. ;)
I wonder why so many people who have no idea what they are talking about seem to think AJAX is required for this?
AJAX has nothing to do with CSS. AJAX is the use of javascript to make remote calls to a server and use the data returned (usually json, xml or html fragments) to populate the parts of the page without reloading the entire page. It does not require HTML and CSS, though it usually goes with an HTML page.
Hiding a facebook like button until clicked does not require AJAX.
Who wants an e-reader without an e-ink display?
People who buy iPads (currently massively outselling kindles) and use them to read books, and the net, and watch videos etc. apparently do.
The display is such a vital part of the experience!
For you. For most people, the disadvantages of an e-ink display outweigh the advantages. That's why more people buy tablets. I'm not sure why e-ink aficionados constantly insist that they can't be compared to a tablet - the two devices do similar things in different ways. They are both good in their own way, and yes they are (for many people) comparable. On some things tablets lose in this comparison (battery life, display in sunlight), but on many other things e-ink devices lose out (colour, response time, resolution, which leads to touch screens and the ability to function as a mini-computer). It's really just a matter of what you want it for - if you just want it for reading novels, an e-ink device definitely wins, if you want to do other stuff (argue on forums about the relative worths of eink and lcd for example), a tablet wins.
If I wanted to stare at a light bulb, I'd just read on the computer. Here's hoping Amazon doesn't abandon the tried-and-true e-ink display.
I doubt very much they'll abandon eink in their cheaper models for years to come. Perhaps they never will if the tech improves and gains colour and a decent refresh rate (though inevitably that'd bring it closer to lcd in power draw). In the meantime, you can enjoy cheaper eink kindles, what's not to like?
Nonetheless, for the majority of users of either device, they're not in the same category. As yourself this: Are Kindles selling (and they are, extremely well) because:
I'd add another reason to your list -
They have a huge backlist of content in the store which comes with the device
That's something key to the success of both the kindle and the iPad, and I'd say it's at least as important than the screen and explains their success over rivals. The iPad has been massively outselling the kindle, so either people who buy iPads just didn't consider kindles, or they considered them and found them wanting, mostly because of the feature that defines them - the eink screen. I suspect it's the latter, but it is hard to know. I do think these devices directly compete (except on price) for most customers, as most people are not looking for a single-function gadget. Just as mobile phones with GPS have gradually replaced single-function GPS handhelds, a similar thing is happening with tablets and single-function readers.
When Amazon releases a colour kindle based on Android, we will have a good way to compare the two types of device with very similar customers buying them - I suspect you'll find the colour version vastly outsells the eink, even amongst those buying to read books. They won't do a combo colour/b&w device because of cost - they'll keep the low-end eink device as the cheap option for at least a few years - after that, because it is useless for surfing the internet (and for that reason alone), I suspect it'll be retired.
That's great. For me it's the only selling point of the kindle, and everything else (slow response, clunky keyboard, no touchscreen, no video, no colour, no apps, etc) counts against it when compared with a tablet. 8 hours is good enough for battery life, though days or weeks would be great, however it is not essential (for me). I'm much happier reading on a tablet than an eink device, partly because I can access much more content ( on the web). I suspect if amazon had not backed eink it would be niche already, but I will be interested to see how long they continue with the eink readers when they have an LCD device as well, and how the sales compare.
Perhaps not for you, but for many people they are in the same category. I don't particularly want eink and compared both when looking at reading devices (and yes I have tried reading with both).
I'm writing this on an LCD tablet which, unlike a kindle, is useful for reading the web, watching video etc. When I decided on an ereader, using the web and email were also important to me and eyestrain was not an issue ( I use LCDs all day, so do you probably). I also read a few chapters of a book on it this morning - I haven't experienced the mythical 'LCD eyestrain' that people often attribute to LCD ereaders, and for me a multipurpose device is a much better fit than an eink device because the trade offs with eink are just huge - the refresh rate is too low and they are useless for anything but reading a simple novel. Another factor was that, as you say, the design on the kindle is abysmal.
So for many people the two devices directly compete, and LCD loses on battery life but wins on everything else.
As to amazon I expect them to move to android for a colour device and bundle their android software and own market - anything else is a huge ongoing investment for very little gain. They will probably undercut competitors too so you may get your wish, minus stuff like hdmi which will not go into early tablets.
I would be asking to see the facebook profile of anyone trying to get into the group and if they don't have one or their profile only goes back a few months I would be extremely suspicious.
So you'd only recruit idiots who have a Facebook profile - smart move for a clandestine organisation!
And as to your analogies, in most cases people do pay tens of millions of dollars for paintings for the original, physical copy. Reproductions, even masterfully done ones, are only ever worth a fraction of the piece.
You're focussing on the wrong part of the analogy. I didn't say originals of paintings were worth less than digital copies, I said the information encoded was what transformed relatively worthless materials into something valuable (of variable value depending on the artist, market, etc, act). Just as the information in a given set of bits could make it worth more than another set of bits (as when you buy software online, you are buying information, or, if you prefer a license to use information (if you happen to believe click-through license agreements have some validity)).
The difference is that a great painting, the print issue of a great novel, and the original stamping of a great music album cannot be exactly duplicated. An arrangement of 1s and 0s can be exactly duplicated such that the copy is indistinguishable from the original. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but that does mean selling it in such a way that it is "the only copy in existence" is downright silly. If it's so great, you'll make a lot more money copying it and selling it cheaply until everyone has one.
Yes of course there are differences, and some physical objects are hard to duplicate but that doesn't make them inherently more valuable, except as trophies.
These originals are already artefacts of another age in the case of novels and music albums - new productions are increasingly only released as information, not as physical artefacts. I was asserting that digital information (order) has value; something converted to digital information does not immediately become as valueless as random bits, as the OP asserted. It may be easier to copy, but that doesn't diminish its intrinsic value as information - as you say it just changes the equation when selling it as to production cost versus sale price, and makes it hard to artificially limit supply (though not impossible). The information still has value which is unrelated to any particular manifestation of that information (in print, on CD, on hard disk, on a server in the sky etc).
This is like Enron declaring a downgrade invalid.
Or like Enron paying for a triple A rating 4 days before their collapse? Companies like Enron pay for their rating from supposedly impartial ratings agencies who have been handed a monopoly on rating by the US gov and allowed to charge the people they are rating money for supplying that rating. S&P and the other rating agencies are now steeped in corruption, and have been since they started taking money for their ratings - they are definitely not an innocent party calling it as they see it I'm afraid, they are as corrupt as any of the players in this game.
That's not to say they are wrong on the US debt - the US probably doesn't deserve an AAA rating, as the default by stealth which is induced inflation and QE is full speed ahead already, meaning that creditors in the rest of the world are being bilked to preserve the US in the style to which it has become accustomed. However S&P calling the US gov at this point in time is more likely a play to get kickbacks or favours from major clients like goldman sachs tipped off prior to the downgrade than a drive for truth - the ratings agencies haven't produced an honest rating in decades.
Hey look, these are your VERY OWN 1's and 0's! We are taking painstaking measures to make sure that absolutely NOBODY ELSE has this same arrangement of 1's and 0's. Sure, we could randomly generate them and then check them by md5 sum against all other files in our database, but NO, we design them JUST FOR YOU!
A great painting is simply an arrangement of inexpensive paint on canvas, a great novel is simply familiar words rearranged on a page, great music is simply the same notes rearranged, and great software is simply 1s and 0s (NB *never* a random collection of bits). Yet somehow all these things are valued above mediocre paintings, novels and software, and people are willing to pay for certain arrangements of 1s and 0s, not because they are stupid, and all 1s and 0s are the same value, but because particular arrangements of information are valuable.
As we move the boundaries of our world to encompass more of the virtual than the real, information will become increasingly valuable, not less valuable. Digital information is also easier to copy than real-life encodings of information, which forms an interesting counterpoint, but that doesn't mean that 1s and 0s are inherently value-less or that any arrangement of them is the same as any other. Quite the reverse - it is becoming more and more clear that information (or order if you prefer) in and of itself has value, entirely independent of the physical world.
So HP is jettisoning all of the things that made it HP two years ago and just focusing on the stuff they got when they bought Palm?
No, they are jettisoning all of the consumer side of the business, and focussing on business hardware and services, which potentially have a much higher return (if you are not competent at selling to consumers). Not necessarily a bad move if they can execute, though their nonsense about licensing WebOS does imply they don't have a clue.
Killing WebOS hardware kills WebOS - there is no way they will license it (who in their right mind would license tech that has no traction and has been a failure for the licensor?!??), and therefore no way they will make money on it. So they are not focussing on the stuff from Palm at all, they are killing it.
A real shame about WebOS, as it was one of the nicer mobile OSs, and all we will have left is iOS, Android and WinPhone (or whatever it is called these days).
You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.
You're the only one bringing up the Daily Mail, says something about you and your prejudices I suppose, but it really is not the stinging rebuke you seem to imagine.
I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.
You really do seem completely divorced from reality - have you ever lived on an estate? Have you any idea what life is like? If not I suggest you do and see how far your 'good example' gets you - it really would be an education for you. Some people are selfish, violent and beyond redemption (at least in the short term) - to deal with them we need prisons and the force of law, or there will be no public space left in which to build a functioning, comfortable and happy environment. Among those people I would class looters - perhaps you'd like to have them as neighbours, but personally I would not.
Encouraging people to lead a happy and comfortable life (by providing opportunities and education) comes after society's rules have been enforced by the rule of law. We can argue over the benefits and costs of both, but one cannot function without the other, and stealing playstations and attacking innocents are not an acceptable form of expression, no matter how frustrated or downtrodden teaching assistants are feeling.
None but the last explain simultaneous peaceful protests, subsequent riots and following looting across the country.
There was one peaceful and justified protest in Tottenham, the rest is just looting and anarchy because they think they'll get away with it. The violence is completely unrelated to one man's death - see the multiple interviews with looters which prove this. Remarkable how you justify all this violence and stealing with 'peaceful protest' because it fits your wold view. Do you have any sympathy for those who have been burned out of their homes, and shopkeepers who have lost their livelihood, who you apparently consider collateral damage, or is all of your sympathy for the scum who are doing the burning?
What if I start a war and that war involves bombing shops and killing its owners?
That war would be wrong, illegal and a waste of money and life, like most wars in history. It would also have nothing to do with riots. Nice try.
Civilised society would expect its police force to stop you by using means only in proportion to the threat you cause. If you want violent retribution, please move to the Middle East - you sound like you'd be most welcome.
i.e. violence is met with violence. I said nothing about retribution, and I don't wish you to leave my country, just that you would grow up and face the real issues here instead of hiding behind your off-the-shelf lefty opinions. Stop and think for yourself for once instead of spouting platitudes.
You speak, evidently, like someone who hasn't actually had it tough and who assumes that all people need is a small handout in order to live a safe, happy life.
You speak like someone who is happy making assumptions without any sort of evidence, so long as they reinforce your ossified world view.
In our society in over to find useful employment and have a decent standard of living all people need is a positive attitude, some luck, and the little bit of help from society (which society provides, in an imperfect way) - their background is of course going to determine a lot of their life unless they are remarkable - like most people and most places in history, that's a very hard problem to crack, and no-one has done it yet, but they *can* escape it, even if in some small way, and they are encouraged to do so. No-one starves unless they have other issues, no-one goes without a home for long (run-down as much of our public housing is, it is still a roof over your head), and it is possible to get a job in most circumstances, even if you have to leave where you live and move (as I did). I'm not saying I agree with cutting this safety net even further, or that it is universally fair, but that is completely unrelated to the issue of whether people should be allowed to riot and loot to express themselves. PS I've been on the dole, and I know life isn't easy, another assumption completely wrong. I'm well aware of the limitations of the safety net, and how it is being dismantled - I'm also aware there is a culture of lawlessness and selfish exploitation in our country (at both ends of the social scale) which needs to be stamped out. There are plenty of things that need fixed in our welfare state, without dismantling it, and many of the cuts this gov. has started are ideological and unneeded, but your pontifications and religion of dependence do nothing to help this problem, quite the reverse.
Go back to your Daily Mail and thank working society for building and running the civilisation which keeps you in comfort.
I don't read the daily mail (it's full of puerile rubbish and bad writing, much like the guardian), don't use the word nigger, and consider looters scum (of all races and backgrounds, many are not black). Funny how your assumptions are universally wrong isn't it? Perhaps you should examine some of your other thoughtless opinions as well. I do find it interesting
Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence.
Well, that can be one reason. Here's some other reasons people resort to violence:
* They don't think at all and don't really give a shit, they just like the buzz
* They think it's not really doing any harm to anyone they know, so why should they care?
* They are greedy and want stuff without any effort, and violence seems like a good way to get it
* They think they will get away with it, so why not?
* They are sociopaths (see above - common emotions felt by sociopaths)
* They have grown up in a violent community and it is the only way to get by
None of that really supports your silly 'class struggle' assertion though does it?
Additionally, a riot is not a protest, stealing is not a protest, arson of shops and homes is not a protest, looting is not a protest, and it should be treated completely differently - if you start looting and burning shops, I'm afraid different rules apply, and you can expect to be treated harshly and to experience violence in your turn from those you threaten. The police have been remarkably lenient, many in the UK would say far too lenient.
And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong?
So what is housing benefit, unemployment benefit, free schooling, free medical care, if not help? What a washed-out tired excuse of an argument - it's all the environment's fault, and the poor little rioters could do nothing to save themselves. These people have had plenty of help, and have chosen to reject the society they live in - there should be consequences for that, or we won't have a society at all in the end, just a free for all. Everyone in the UK has the right to judge the scum doing the rioting, and they do judge them harshly - let's hope the courts agree.
Yes they are wrong, and so is RIM for handing over the private communications of their subscribers to a third party.
If the third party is the police or government, and their customers are breaking the law in an obvious way using BBM to communicate, I don't have a problem with that - do you?
One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.
Don't know where you're from, but round here breaking into shops and looting is not 'protesting'.
Re your bullshit about overstepping a line - the only ones doing that are those burning cars, assaulting innocent passers by, and throwing petrol bombs into neighbourhood shops.
The US would never cause hyper-inflation to repay their debts... doing so would destroy their economy overnight.
QE1 - http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/monetary-policy-qe1-qe2-and-oil?library_node=25113
QE2 - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26376.html
QE3? - http://money.msn.com/market-news/post.aspx?post=d062663c-e5c3-4801-8aec-a3c5a5130bbe
QED
The Dow is rising and falling in time with these huge injections of newly minted electronic cash, and all that money has to go somewhere - it's causing huge fluctuations in global asset and commodity values, and consequent crashes when it is withdrawn. It could be argued that it is making things worse, not better, and it is certainly causing higher inflation.
In 10 years time $1000 will be worth less, and quite possibly close to worthless. The only other way out is to grow the economy huge amounts while under pressure from significantly cheaper or more efficient competitors (China, SE Asia etc), pull out of all those incredibly expensive foreign wars and foreign military bases, or default. Inflating their way out of it is the easiest way for the politicians.
Your suggested solution (moving js outside the document) would make no difference to security.
The issue is that a program like word needs to execute code (formats like PDF, macros, code to manipulate the document) which leaves it open to attacks so that code needs to be properly sandboxed, ideally in a separate process as has been popularised by chrome and more recently web kit. That has nothing to do with where the js etc resides in the document, which from a security point of view, doesn't really matter.
So long as there is an option for disabling js completely on read, and sand boxing it fully when it is turned on ( something browsers have been doing for years) moving to js and HTML would not make office any less secure, and possibly more secure as rendering js and HTML is a well understood problem.