All that is ok, which is why PCs are still available for you and me. Do you deny that more than 80% "PC" users today use it in ways completely supported by today's tablets? Let's see
The amount of productivity lost switching between applications on a tablet and clunky copy and paste is huge
In my estimate, more than 80% of PC users don't use copy and paste. What is yours? Alt-tab is a revelation for most people I tell about it, and they promptly stop using after once or twice in my presence. Switching between applications the way 80% users do on PCs is already very clunky.
Not being able to read the a word document or a PDF while you follow directions in another application also leads to immense loss of productivity.
More than 80% of PC users today have never done this, even on a PC where it is "possible". This "possible" is itself debatable, because the overwhelmingly popular PC operating system comes with a horrible window manager which makes it somewhat hard to do it. Yes there are ways to do it easily, but more than 98% of users are unaware of them so it is irrelevant.
Did you miss the plurality? Multiple extra monitors
Here, at least 80% PC users are shocked when they see someone else's multiple monitor setup. More than 95% have themselves never used multiple monitor setups, more than 90% do not use it regularly on their "casual use" PC. Mentioning "casual use" PC because that is all tablet might replace for the foreseeable future.
Network storage is slow compared to connected storage
And difficult to setup for 95% of the PC users, so storage limitation might remain. Still 64 GB is plenty for 80% of PC users today on their casual use PC.
As to tablets being more powerful than desktops from a few years ago, so what. The comparison is invalid as desktops today can run rings around multiple tablets.
And maximum CPU usage on 80% of PC users is 30%. Except flash and anti-virus. Exercise for the reader - name 2 applications most tablets today DO NOT run. (Ok, most tablets today CAN run flash, but with the Youtube application on Android, most users don't bother with it.)
So let us see your estimates on the percentages I speculate about above. That will almost be your opinion on the percentage of people who can switch to tablets after their PC dies.
Beg to differ on which exact statement in the long quote? And on what basis?
Strategic mountain area helps retain land that is NOT "backwater" mountain, inhabited land where the country might want to protect its citizens. In itself strategic mountain area might be useless but this makes it useful. I thought this much was obvious?
Soldiers die in an unprovoked attack on a country and you don't understand that enmity is not an imagined one? "Wait what?"
A hungry tiger in a confined space is a very real enemy, a pakistani not so much.
Irrelevant. Most Pakistanis might be nice people, just that they have ruled overtly or covertly by their military, which has hyped the India threat to increase the importance of the Army. So "a pakistani[sic]" might not be a "real enemy", but Pakistan as a whole is. E.g. Kargil. Or 26/11.
The slights are imagined, the dispute is over some backwater mountain region none of the countries actually want, except because their neighbor does
Some are strategically good mountain regions.
No indian and no pakistani is born hating their neighbor, that hate is taught.
Right, so dying in Kargil must have been present for the soldiers. Great to know that.
And that's where the GGP became an incompetent..... If you take anyone or anything at their word without reason, it's a bad idea.
GGP didn't "become" incompetent, he just half-implied he donated to PETA earlier. By taking him at his word without reason, and then postulating that he actually took anyone at their word, you are guilty of a bigger idiocy. Let's see you stop using a network-connected computer.
1. He didn't mention he donated to PETA 2. Even if he had mentioned it, it doesn't mean he actually donated to PETA.
Typically, it forgets everything immediately, as it doesn't record by default.
It also "forgets" in the sense that upload to Google is not default, nor necessary.
You might say that about "Google", that it forgets nothing once it knows about something. That statement is reasonably true. But GG is not the same as Google.
Based on that logic, anybody who decides to commit a crime, can write a memo stating that they're doing it for jihad before they do it and become a terrorist?
Sure, why not? They would be instantly eligible for enhanced punishments, greater certainty of punishments, and quicker delivery of judgement. What more does a criminal need?
I think Apple can afford to hire their own security, don't you?
Extremely myopic.
Government pays for the police, that not only will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want, but also prevent other people from running their own police. This made it possible for Apple (or many successful companies) to come into existence in the first place, otherwise the energies that are now directed towards making nice goods and services would get consumed by everyone fighting among each other.
Sandbox is no reason to prevent a user click on a number in the sandboxed application from asking the user if he wants to call that number. At all.
Since the sandboxed application is capable of using a framework provided, or operating system provided tool to present information to the user, it is easy for the framework / operating system to figure that directly that the user clicked on the number. Rather than the application telling the framework that the user clicked on the number. The latter would have been a violation of the sandbox, not the former.
Nice example. The way you suggest to make the law "fair" is to make it enormously complicated (list every animal). There is a simple way, that really removes the loophole - "if an animal trainer's animal injures a viewer, the trainer must compensate the injured viewer < insert 3-10 classes of injury that every constitution has defined in other sections, and corresponding penalty.>"
Since you kind of assumed a circus scenario, I didn't cross the limits, but it is in general useless to make laws specific so circuses. One would rather say "if any entertainment performance hurts the viewer...". A separate law for entertainment makes sense because the intent of the viewer in entertainment setting is completely different from, say, an employment setting.
The politicians (at least the bureaucrats who do the actual drafting of laws) know perfectly well how to make simple and real fair laws, and how to overcomplicate to scratch someone's back. They choose to do the latter not out of incompetence as the naive would assume.
You're proposing to go about it completely the wrong way. Loopholes are removed by simplifying the law, not complicating it. At least that is the only sustainable way to do it.
Problem with simplifying is that it steps on someone's toes who paid a lot to get a particular complication into the law.
Yes, but then the BES keys have been handed over to the government by the company running the BES server. The attack vector doesn't include Blackberry (erstwhile RIM) in this case. Run your own BES, don't hand over keys (if you can) to the government and there is no attack vector. That is what is being discussed.
McDonalds was chosen because it's bad food that children love, but many/most parents don't.
You'd be surprised how many parents love McDonald's food. And "not loving" is not remotely comparable to "having a yuck factor for" as far as eating or introducing their kids to eating something.
And I have a very good idea of what countries have bug eating as a common thing
Which is completely irrelevant - as the UN cannot be hoping to "introduce" bug eating in cultures where it is already prevalent.Logic 101 disaster.
All statements here are obviously applicable to only cultures where knowingly eating bugs is NOT accepted yet.
because you seemed hooked on a misapprehension that I'd compared bugs to sugar, salt and fat.
Your statement "McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?" wasn't clear what in all these nouns is being compared to bugs. NONE of the nouns in the statement are comparable to bugs in the strength of the yuck factor they evoke, so even if you compared bugs with any of the other nouns here, it is all equally colossally wrong.
Who will introduce the non-orphan kids? The "yucked out" parents?
The same people that introduced them to McDonalds.
But your comparison of McDonald's with bugs was clear. And colossally wrong too. Mentioning for the fifth time - McDonald's doesn't evoke the yuck factor with a strength remotely comparable to bugs. You yourself admit that "some parents" love McDonald's food. None of them love bugs. Also proven by the number of people eating food there in bug-incompatible cultures as compared to the number of people eating and feeding kids bugs. And for the second time - cultural acceptability, taste, and nutrition are all incomparable between bugs and McDonald's.
In case you get lost again - bug compatible compatible cultures are not being discussed. At all.
Actually your choice of McDonald's for comparison already reeks of all this. And of your ignorance of the fact that bug yuck factor applies to much more of the world than the Americas.
It would, of course, be futile to tell you I've never set foot in the Americas, or that all your comparisons of bugs with McDonald's in the thread were in present or even past tense. So go ahead and change the nature of the discussion to one of an unknown future as it is the easiest recourse for you.
McDonald's might not have the yuck factor to you. It does to many parents.
Many? Ok, compare the number of people eating and feeding their kids at McDonald's ; with the number of people eating bugs and feeding their kids bugs. You'll know how many people have the yuck factor for bugs versus McDonald's.
Then why are they being compared to bugs, which have the yuck factor?
The same people that introduced them to McDonalds.
Yes because, as I said earlier, McDonald's doesn't have yuck factor, bugs do. So parents introduce kids to McDonald's, not to bugs.
In what way am I not being clear?
In comparing the incomparables, McDonald's and bugs? One much less nutritious, more tasty, more culturally accepted than the other? In utterly failing to understand the yuck factor?
most families with $65k have no idea how to turn their 90th percentile kid into the kind of kid who gets into Harvard
.....
pushing their kid to apply to Harvard and spend $0 they push him to apply to [cheap state school] and spend $10,000 or so a year
More importantly they generally don't know that Harvard will be free for their kid
And all that is Harvard's loss, isn't it? One less super-achiever in Harvard list of Alumni. The other "rich" kids have one less reason to pay astronomical sums for a Harvard education.
So to get "profit", Harvard has to do some advertising, some "public information", public re-education to make talented kids know about this zero fees program. Like any other business has to. Whodathunkit ?
Slashdot Mirror
All that is ok, which is why PCs are still available for you and me. Do you deny that more than 80% "PC" users today use it in ways completely supported by today's tablets? Let's see
The amount of productivity lost switching between applications on a tablet and clunky copy and paste is huge
In my estimate, more than 80% of PC users don't use copy and paste. What is yours?
Alt-tab is a revelation for most people I tell about it, and they promptly stop using after once or twice in my presence. Switching between applications the way 80% users do on PCs is already very clunky.
Not being able to read the a word document or a PDF while you follow directions in another application also leads to immense loss of productivity.
More than 80% of PC users today have never done this, even on a PC where it is "possible". This "possible" is itself debatable, because the overwhelmingly popular PC operating system comes with a horrible window manager which makes it somewhat hard to do it. Yes there are ways to do it easily, but more than 98% of users are unaware of them so it is irrelevant.
Did you miss the plurality? Multiple extra monitors
Here, at least 80% PC users are shocked when they see someone else's multiple monitor setup. More than 95% have themselves never used multiple monitor setups, more than 90% do not use it regularly on their "casual use" PC. Mentioning "casual use" PC because that is all tablet might replace for the foreseeable future.
Network storage is slow compared to connected storage
And difficult to setup for 95% of the PC users, so storage limitation might remain. Still 64 GB is plenty for 80% of PC users today on their casual use PC.
As to tablets being more powerful than desktops from a few years ago, so what. The comparison is invalid as desktops today can run rings around multiple tablets.
And maximum CPU usage on 80% of PC users is 30%. Except flash and anti-virus. Exercise for the reader - name 2 applications most tablets today DO NOT run. (Ok, most tablets today CAN run flash, but with the Youtube application on Android, most users don't bother with it.)
So let us see your estimates on the percentages I speculate about above. That will almost be your opinion on the percentage of people who can switch to tablets after their PC dies.
Beg to differ on which exact statement in the long quote? And on what basis?
Strategic mountain area helps retain land that is NOT "backwater" mountain, inhabited land where the country might want to protect its citizens. In itself strategic mountain area might be useless but this makes it useful. I thought this much was obvious?
Soldiers die in an unprovoked attack on a country and you don't understand that enmity is not an imagined one? "Wait what?"
present -> pleasant
stupid autocorrect
A hungry tiger in a confined space is a very real enemy, a pakistani not so much.
Irrelevant. Most Pakistanis might be nice people, just that they have ruled overtly or covertly by their military, which has hyped the India threat to increase the importance of the Army. So "a pakistani[sic]" might not be a "real enemy", but Pakistan as a whole is. E.g. Kargil. Or 26/11.
The slights are imagined, the dispute is over some backwater mountain region none of the countries actually want, except because their neighbor does
Some are strategically good mountain regions.
No indian and no pakistani is born hating their neighbor, that hate is taught.
Right, so dying in Kargil must have been present for the soldiers. Great to know that.
And that's where the GGP became an incompetent ..... If you take anyone or anything at their word without reason, it's a bad idea.
GGP didn't "become" incompetent, he just half-implied he donated to PETA earlier. By taking him at his word without reason, and then postulating that he actually took anyone at their word, you are guilty of a bigger idiocy. Let's see you stop using a network-connected computer.
1. He didn't mention he donated to PETA
2. Even if he had mentioned it, it doesn't mean he actually donated to PETA.
Do apply your own logic to yourself.
The GG forgets nothing
Typically, it forgets everything immediately, as it doesn't record by default.
It also "forgets" in the sense that upload to Google is not default, nor necessary.
You might say that about "Google", that it forgets nothing once it knows about something. That statement is reasonably true. But GG is not the same as Google.
Since the Earth is moving in Sun's frame of reference, Sun is definitely moving in the Earth's frame of reference.
Sun is not moving in its own frame of reference, but nothing really is (if you forget the moment).
Based on that logic, anybody who decides to commit a crime, can write a memo stating that they're doing it for jihad before they do it and become a terrorist?
Sure, why not? They would be instantly eligible for enhanced punishments, greater certainty of punishments, and quicker delivery of judgement. What more does a criminal need?
we know how plenty of ways to kill it quickly and easily
At slashdot, we know of one way only. Nuke it from orbit. The only way to be sure.
I think Apple can afford to hire their own security, don't you?
Extremely myopic.
Government pays for the police, that not only will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want, but also prevent other people from running their own police. This made it possible for Apple (or many successful companies) to come into existence in the first place, otherwise the energies that are now directed towards making nice goods and services would get consumed by everyone fighting among each other.
Sandbox is no reason to prevent a user click on a number in the sandboxed application from asking the user if he wants to call that number. At all.
Since the sandboxed application is capable of using a framework provided, or operating system provided tool to present information to the user, it is easy for the framework / operating system to figure that directly that the user clicked on the number. Rather than the application telling the framework that the user clicked on the number. The latter would have been a violation of the sandbox, not the former.
Nice example. The way you suggest to make the law "fair" is to make it enormously complicated (list every animal). There is a simple way, that really removes the loophole - "if an animal trainer's animal injures a viewer, the trainer must compensate the injured viewer < insert 3-10 classes of injury that every constitution has defined in other sections, and corresponding penalty.>"
Since you kind of assumed a circus scenario, I didn't cross the limits, but it is in general useless to make laws specific so circuses. One would rather say "if any entertainment performance hurts the viewer ...". A separate law for entertainment makes sense because the intent of the viewer in entertainment setting is completely different from, say, an employment setting.
The politicians (at least the bureaucrats who do the actual drafting of laws) know perfectly well how to make simple and real fair laws, and how to overcomplicate to scratch someone's back. They choose to do the latter not out of incompetence as the naive would assume.
You're proposing to go about it completely the wrong way. Loopholes are removed by simplifying the law, not complicating it. At least that is the only sustainable way to do it.
Problem with simplifying is that it steps on someone's toes who paid a lot to get a particular complication into the law.
Yes, but then the BES keys have been handed over to the government by the company running the BES server. The attack vector doesn't include Blackberry (erstwhile RIM) in this case. Run your own BES, don't hand over keys (if you can) to the government and there is no attack vector. That is what is being discussed.
Click on the phone number in the email / text (not sure of bbm). Confirm that you want to call the number. Call.
Stop doing that. You have already sustained enough brain damage that you have stopped posting coherently.
McDonalds was chosen because it's bad food that children love, but many/most parents don't.
You'd be surprised how many parents love McDonald's food. And "not loving" is not remotely comparable to "having a yuck factor for" as far as eating or introducing their kids to eating something.
And I have a very good idea of what countries have bug eating as a common thing
Which is completely irrelevant - as the UN cannot be hoping to "introduce" bug eating in cultures where it is already prevalent.Logic 101 disaster.
All statements here are obviously applicable to only cultures where knowingly eating bugs is NOT accepted yet.
because you seemed hooked on a misapprehension that I'd compared bugs to sugar, salt and fat.
Your statement "McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?" wasn't clear what in all these nouns is being compared to bugs. NONE of the nouns in the statement are comparable to bugs in the strength of the yuck factor they evoke, so even if you compared bugs with any of the other nouns here, it is all equally colossally wrong.
Who will introduce the non-orphan kids? The "yucked out" parents?
The same people that introduced them to McDonalds.
But your comparison of McDonald's with bugs was clear. And colossally wrong too. Mentioning for the fifth time - McDonald's doesn't evoke the yuck factor with a strength remotely comparable to bugs. You yourself admit that "some parents" love McDonald's food. None of them love bugs. Also proven by the number of people eating food there in bug-incompatible cultures as compared to the number of people eating and feeding kids bugs. And for the second time - cultural acceptability, taste, and nutrition are all incomparable between bugs and McDonald's.
In case you get lost again - bug compatible compatible cultures are not being discussed. At all.
Actually your choice of McDonald's for comparison already reeks of all this. And of your ignorance of the fact that bug yuck factor applies to much more of the world than the Americas.
It would, of course, be futile to tell you I've never set foot in the Americas, or that all your comparisons of bugs with McDonald's in the thread were in present or even past tense. So go ahead and change the nature of the discussion to one of an unknown future as it is the easiest recourse for you.
McDonald's might not have the yuck factor to you. It does to many parents.
Many? Ok, compare the number of people eating and feeding their kids at McDonald's ; with the number of people eating bugs and feeding their kids bugs. You'll know how many people have the yuck factor for bugs versus McDonald's.
Huh?!? No they counteract it
Then why are they being compared to bugs, which have the yuck factor?
The same people that introduced them to McDonalds.
Yes because, as I said earlier, McDonald's doesn't have yuck factor, bugs do. So parents introduce kids to McDonald's, not to bugs.
In what way am I not being clear?
In comparing the incomparables, McDonald's and bugs? One much less nutritious, more tasty, more culturally accepted than the other? In utterly failing to understand the yuck factor?
McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food
Sugar, fat and salt have "yuck" factor? That is being discussed here if you read the thread.
There's absolutely no reason way kids can't be introduced to eating bugs. It's something that won't happen over night though.
Nobody is saying there is any reason kids can't be introduced. But someone needs to. Who will introduce the non-orphan kids? The "yucked out" parents?
Rather than fighting the "yuck" factor of grown-ups, McDonald's attracted everyone with the cheap, "tasty" food. That is not going to work with bugs.
I have an engineering degree (BS, AOE)
I did bullshitting with Age-of-Empires during my engineering degree course too. I can't even hold a job.
most families with $65k have no idea how to turn their 90th percentile kid into the kind of kid who gets into Harvard
pushing their kid to apply to Harvard and spend $0 they push him to apply to [cheap state school] and spend $10,000 or so a year
More importantly they generally don't know that Harvard will be free for their kid
And all that is Harvard's loss, isn't it? One less super-achiever in Harvard list of Alumni. The other "rich" kids have one less reason to pay astronomical sums for a Harvard education.
So to get "profit", Harvard has to do some advertising, some "public information", public re-education to make talented kids know about this zero fees program. Like any other business has to. Whodathunkit ?
Sorry, doesn't count. Ant coated chocolate just isn't the same as chocolate coated ant. Not even in the same ballpark.