Not really. Products can only last on the market if they satisfy their users and their maker to mutual benefit. Products that only satisfy their maker either disappear quickly (which is not to say the maker cannot make lots of $$$ with them) or stay alife because the maker has a quasi-monopoly.
To add another great wisdom, the above does not mean that long-lasting products automatically mirror what customers really want or need. When offered a choice between shit alone versus shit with strawberries, many people will gladly spend their discrete income on shit with strawberries and be quite satisfied; only few will choose nothing instead.
I'm not against animal experiments in general, they may certainly be acceptable if they help us defeat cancer, Alzheimer or malaria. But this time I pass. This does not seem like the kind of research for which expensive rats for laboratories ought to be used.
Hm, this is not a new idea. I've tried a super-cheap Android laptop years ago (can't remember the brand though) and had to return it, because it was completely unable to handle different keyboard layouts with dead keys / accents. Apparently there was no way to patch the software without rooting the device and patching it yourself. Quite an epic fail and the device disappeared from the stores in our country shortly thereafter.
Now that was a long time ago, so I wonder: Has this been fixed? Do international keyboards and keyboard layouts work flawlessly with recent versions of Android?
Simple answer: Being recorded and being remembered are two quite different things, as any prominent person (actors, politicians, and even stupid fucks like Eric Schmidt) will be able to confirm you if they are honest.
Unity has many haters, but from the latest LTS release on, it is actually pretty good.
I switched to Xubuntu for the time being but am willing to give it a second try. I only have one question: Does Unity by now have a menu of all applications reachable with one click or mouse hover?
When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons. The concept of searching for applications by a name (that you must remember) is inherently flawed and was discarded with the invention of the desktop and folders in the early 80s. If that has been fixed I'm happy to give Ubuntu another try. (The application "dock" is also pretty annoying, especially since it only seems to pop up every second time I try, but I assume it is easier to customize by now.)
It would be more secure if speech recognition was almost error-free and the computer-human interaction more elaborate - e.g. including contextual clues about the driving situation. Basically, you'd need to be able to send a text message by mumbling "uhm, send a message to John whatever, you know, that I'll be late because of uhm traffic" where your phone might interrupt you at anytime and say "Hey, watch where you drive!"
Technology is not yet that far but likely in 10-20 years. However, in my opinion any such technology should be required to be developed as safety-critical systems like in avionics, and then it was no longer affordable.
Your attempt at being sarcastic failed, because there is not much positive to say about the razor/razor blade business model (or the bubblejet/ink cartridge business model for what it's worth).
My salary is fine and I have no envy, so until corresponding laws are in place it's no problem for me when rich people spend their money. Why shouldn't they? (And of course to some people someone with a salary slightly below $1000000 USD a year might still count as insanely rich, not sure about that.)
While I do believe that any government should ensure that nobody is able to have an income higher than $1000000 USD per year and will always vote accordingly, I have no problem with people who buy expensive yachts if they happen to be insanely rich.
You seem to have only right-wing libertarianism in mind, but there is also left-wing libertarianism. I'm not advertising it, just wanted to mention it.
The Chromebook isn't intended to be a "crippled terminal type computer",
Yes, it is. Quite literally. Chromebooks are dumb terminals, though less dumb and with more fancy graphic art than terminals from the 80s.
and its concept is new.
No, it's not. I remember the very same idea from the 90s.
The reason people keep getting this wrong is that they think of it as an OS that is "just a browser", but refer to an outdated concept of what a web browser does that misses the entire point of Chrome (not just ChromeOS, but Chrome more generally.)
Oh yeah, and that point is: What Java failed with as a Language/OS platform tied to Sun, the Chrome browser will achieve as a Web/OS platform tied to Google. Or not...
especially when the legal means of consuming the content covers most of the intended market
Uh, perhaps they should intend a bit more then?
Really, this is starting to piss me off. Where I live it is basically impossible to legally watch anything but "America's Next Top Model" and "Extreme Reconstruction" on expensive internet set-top box TV or buy buying decade old series I've already watched on DVD for ridiculously high prizes. No new series, no legal streaming, no working cinema on demand. You can't imagine how gladly I would pay for being able to watch a series or movie on my PC in halfway good quality... in English without subtitles, not synchronized or with letters smeared all over the picture. But no, apparently it's just totally impossible to set up reliable streaming outside the US in a country where just about everyone has a 100Mb fiber optics connection.
What is most important is that the user must perform the same steps for activating secure boot of an operating system regardless of which operating system is being installed. No extra fiddling in the UEFI for non-Microsoft operating systems and no dependence of other OS makers on Microsoft for anything in this process.
My conjecture is that the OP used a rhetorical technique called sarcasm, a technique quite unknown to us Vulcans although we are frequently and incorrectly being accused of using it.
Umph, today must be "general misinterpretation day." I didn't say they are unbiased, I suggested they are more reputable and of higher quality than any purely ad-sponsored news service you can only find on the Internet. And yes, I really think so.
I said that I would pay if I really want to. Obviously, anybody who really wants something and has the money will pay for it. But more importantly, I have a place in reality and do not really feel a need to have a "place on the Internet" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
But even more importantly, there were plenty of good places on the Net before it was occupied by greedy corporations. I'm old enough to remember.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Products can only last on the market if they satisfy their users and their maker to mutual benefit. Products that only satisfy their maker either disappear quickly (which is not to say the maker cannot make lots of $$$ with them) or stay alife because the maker has a quasi-monopoly.
To add another great wisdom, the above does not mean that long-lasting products automatically mirror what customers really want or need. When offered a choice between shit alone versus shit with strawberries, many people will gladly spend their discrete income on shit with strawberries and be quite satisfied; only few will choose nothing instead.
I'm not against animal experiments in general, they may certainly be acceptable if they help us defeat cancer, Alzheimer or malaria. But this time I pass. This does not seem like the kind of research for which expensive rats for laboratories ought to be used.
Hm, this is not a new idea. I've tried a super-cheap Android laptop years ago (can't remember the brand though) and had to return it, because it was completely unable to handle different keyboard layouts with dead keys / accents. Apparently there was no way to patch the software without rooting the device and patching it yourself. Quite an epic fail and the device disappeared from the stores in our country shortly thereafter.
Now that was a long time ago, so I wonder: Has this been fixed? Do international keyboards and keyboard layouts work flawlessly with recent versions of Android?
Simple answer: Being recorded and being remembered are two quite different things, as any prominent person (actors, politicians, and even stupid fucks like Eric Schmidt) will be able to confirm you if they are honest.
Unity has many haters, but from the latest LTS release on, it is actually pretty good.
I switched to Xubuntu for the time being but am willing to give it a second try. I only have one question: Does Unity by now have a menu of all applications reachable with one click or mouse hover?
When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons. The concept of searching for applications by a name (that you must remember) is inherently flawed and was discarded with the invention of the desktop and folders in the early 80s. If that has been fixed I'm happy to give Ubuntu another try. (The application "dock" is also pretty annoying, especially since it only seems to pop up every second time I try, but I assume it is easier to customize by now.)
It would be more secure if speech recognition was almost error-free and the computer-human interaction more elaborate - e.g. including contextual clues about the driving situation. Basically, you'd need to be able to send a text message by mumbling "uhm, send a message to John whatever, you know, that I'll be late because of uhm traffic" where your phone might interrupt you at anytime and say "Hey, watch where you drive!"
Technology is not yet that far but likely in 10-20 years. However, in my opinion any such technology should be required to be developed as safety-critical systems like in avionics, and then it was no longer affordable.
Your attempt at being sarcastic failed, because there is not much positive to say about the razor/razor blade business model (or the bubblejet/ink cartridge business model for what it's worth).
What's fraudulent about this?
You can name planets as you like. Whether you're understood or not depends on how many others follow your naming convention, of course.
My salary is fine and I have no envy, so until corresponding laws are in place it's no problem for me when rich people spend their money. Why shouldn't they? (And of course to some people someone with a salary slightly below $1000000 USD a year might still count as insanely rich, not sure about that.)
Judging from the psychopathic tone of your post, I wouldn't be surprised if you indeed earn more than $1000000 USD per year.
While I do believe that any government should ensure that nobody is able to have an income higher than $1000000 USD per year and will always vote accordingly, I have no problem with people who buy expensive yachts if they happen to be insanely rich.
Let me add to this: No, thanks. I already have *email* and *telephone*, which provide enough of a "social hub".
You seem to have only right-wing libertarianism in mind, but there is also left-wing libertarianism. I'm not advertising it, just wanted to mention it.
... and use BibTeX! There are good front-ends like JabRef if you don't like editing test files.
Emacs with Auctex works like a charm.
The Chromebook isn't intended to be a "crippled terminal type computer",
Yes, it is. Quite literally. Chromebooks are dumb terminals, though less dumb and with more fancy graphic art than terminals from the 80s.
and its concept is new.
No, it's not. I remember the very same idea from the 90s.
The reason people keep getting this wrong is that they think of it as an OS that is "just a browser", but refer to an outdated concept of what a web browser does that misses the entire point of Chrome (not just ChromeOS, but Chrome more generally.)
Oh yeah, and that point is: What Java failed with as a Language/OS platform tied to Sun, the Chrome browser will achieve as a Web/OS platform tied to Google. Or not ...
especially when the legal means of consuming the content covers most of the intended market
Uh, perhaps they should intend a bit more then?
Really, this is starting to piss me off. Where I live it is basically impossible to legally watch anything but "America's Next Top Model" and "Extreme Reconstruction" on expensive internet set-top box TV or buy buying decade old series I've already watched on DVD for ridiculously high prizes. No new series, no legal streaming, no working cinema on demand. You can't imagine how gladly I would pay for being able to watch a series or movie on my PC in halfway good quality... in English without subtitles, not synchronized or with letters smeared all over the picture. But no, apparently it's just totally impossible to set up reliable streaming outside the US in a country where just about everyone has a 100Mb fiber optics connection.
What is most important is that the user must perform the same steps for activating secure boot of an operating system regardless of which operating system is being installed. No extra fiddling in the UEFI for non-Microsoft operating systems and no dependence of other OS makers on Microsoft for anything in this process.
My conjecture is that the OP used a rhetorical technique called sarcasm, a technique quite unknown to us Vulcans although we are frequently and incorrectly being accused of using it.
I've just purchased two old Casio organizers via E-Bay and a calculator! This proves conclusively that the author is wrong.
Looks more like David against Goliath to me.
No, it's not theft.
I can install and use whatever software I like on my telephone, including ad blockers. No justification required.
Umph, today must be "general misinterpretation day." I didn't say they are unbiased, I suggested they are more reputable and of higher quality than any purely ad-sponsored news service you can only find on the Internet. And yes, I really think so.
I said that I would pay if I really want to. Obviously, anybody who really wants something and has the money will pay for it. But more importantly, I have a place in reality and do not really feel a need to have a "place on the Internet" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
But even more importantly, there were plenty of good places on the Net before it was occupied by greedy corporations. I'm old enough to remember.