Never forget Google's main money maker is not search, it is not ads and it is not applications. It is data and the statistics that are derived from that data.
Citation, please? Their shareholder prospectus says 97% of their revenue is from AdWords.
If you've been using a convertible tablet for that long, you must have noticed that the market is not there.
If you had said that three years ago, I would have agreed, sadbear and lamenting, having made extensive commentary about how far ahead of the curve Nintendo was.
Two years ago I'd have pointed out that three Japanese manufacturers were making them and that they were selling well.
Last year I'd have pointed out that half of PC manufacturers were making them, they started at $700 and that they were selling very well.
Today I can point out that Hewlett Packard's second best selling laptop is a convertible tablet (indeed I'm using it right now.)
Things change. Yes, I was an early adopter, but the world has caught up.
The best tablets are business-oriented and cost 2x as much as a consumer device with the same capabilities should.
This used to be true. It isn't anymore. Notably, this will be true of the Apple device that you're suggesting is indication that there's now a market, so I'm not sure what this was meant to prove.
HP, Lenovo and Dell have tablets that are very reasonably priced for the hardware inside.
but with the terrible AMD Turion mobile processor and sub-par construction.
Er, mine isn't a turion, and mine doesn't have terrible construction. Please stick to the facts.
There just isn't a single device which has proven that tablet computing is viable compared to the "traditional" keyboard and trackpad interface on normal laptops.
Ahem. Convertible tablet, not tablet. Convertible means "it's a laptop with a keyboard and a trackpad whose screen can fold over". Nobody is ditching their keyboards and trackpads.
because other manufacturers will see that success and take the tablet market seriously
Uh, what? It's too late for that. Almost every manufacturer has a convertible now, and the ones which don't have frequently said they're underway. Apple isn't breaking any new ground here; the Apple fan habit of casting everything into "everyone's following apple" is nasty and disingenuous.
Apple fans have a borderline fantastical ability to ascribe everyone else's actions to Apple, but when you turn around and point out how other companies moved first, Apple fans often say "well there wasn't a market before and Apple broke it and everyone followed Apple."
No. Apple is the follower. They haven't invented anything in a long, long time. I'd ask you for examples, but I gave that up a long time ago, when I learned that showing Apple fans who the real inventor was doesn't really get them out of their fantasy worlds.
Unfortunately we may be seeing the decline of the convertible (for those unfamiliar, a tablet with attached keyboard that basically operates like a normal laptop in the 10"-13" screen size,
Please re-read context. I've been talking about convertibles the entire time. Try reading. (Incidentally, Apple is almost certainly making a convertible. Yes, I know, that's not what the story says, but on the balance, consider what the iPhone stories said.)
but if "You will be very surprised how you interact with the new tablet" as the rumors have said
When is the last time you were surprised by how you interacted with an Apple product?
They said that about the iPhone, too. They were wrong then, too.
When will you wake up to all the marketing you're falling for?
and that means the interface has been worked out to the finest detail
Well, it isn't on my iPhone. And the iPhone has been out and worked on for a very long time.
I'm reminded of my Mac friends being unable to eject CDs.
so that one shouldn't ever NEED a keyboard (or precise mouse control), this could start a revolution in computing.
Dude they can't even make a phone I don't need a keyboard for. Try using just a little bit of skepticism some time.
There's a large, easily felt physical outcropping which is one of several significant stimulus points. Maybe it's not the grafenberg spot, but it's what we think of when we hear g-spot.
There's a reason that people believe in this thing, ask for it to be stimulated on certain moods, et cetera.
When I was there, RUCS (Rutgers University Computing Services) ran a campus of around 18k people from four active student admins and eleven never-seen never-active bureacratic staff. So that gives a ratio of about 4500:1. It's worse if you consider time of day, though: that was three during the day (6000:1) and one at night (18000:1).
Disclaimer: it's been almost 15 years, the school's size may have changed, and there's an outside chance that RUCS might have gotten rid of their dead weight and gotten their shit together.
There's a long history of games that try to be realistic with one-hit kills and body disabling; Bushido Blade in particular tried to make an enormous selling point of it, but I can name dozens of these games off of the top of my head.
None of them are popular. It's not that they're too difficult; there are many far more difficult games out there with enormous cult followings (R-Type, the 2d Prince of Persia games, Puzzle Fighter 2T and Solomon's Key come to mind).
It's that when you get hit once and go down, it feels cheap; like cheating.
They don't do well in the market because we're so used to video game laws that more realistic laws leave your player feeling ripped off.
The only game I'm aware of that ever got popular with a bunch of one-hit kills is Dragon's Lair, and I maintain that that's more about the ridiculously high production values for the day; nobody plays that game today, or even five years after it was contemporary, and there's a reason for that.
And don't kid yourself into thinking it's about hardware; laser disc hardware is still in production, and people fly over the moon to get 49-way laser joysticks for their Sinistar consoles.
It's because this "oh my god have to be real" thing doesn't lead to fun games. Stopping and starting over at the slightest mistake doesn't make good entertainment.
Incidentally, real humans can usually take several bullets which aren't headshorts or heartshots.
Basically no, you can't keep them out. Get a better host, who respects your privacy.
There's a downside: most diagnostics aren't possible without root, and it's quite likely that most of your small outages they really don't know about. If you seal them out of root, you're on your own up to the ethernet plug.
Some hosts will be happy to be told to GTFO the box, because it means less work for them. Be aware that if you tell a host to GTFO the box, they're not likely to stand behind you if the FBI says you have kiddie porn or warez or so on.
Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.
Then why intelligent design? Why the existing climate controversy?
I think the Wall Street Journal has a higher opinion of yesterday's average person than was warranted. People haven't automatically listened to well educated people that study things for their entire lives for several decades now.
The ability to google compelling-sounding things has turned us into a nation of people who think they're experts at everything.
You should be calculating the amount of uranium in the surface of the earth, not the volume. Deep mining is less realistic than asteroid mining; it's unlikely to ever happen. Practically speaking, at current demand and growth rates, with enrichment, u238 buys us only a couple hundred years. ("Only.")
But hey, eventually we'll switch to the thorium cycle, and then fusion, and scarcity will actually vanish.
Because cute infopics about what a supposedly tiny fraction of the desert would need to be covered in solar panels fail to take account the tremendous cost of infrastructure in frames, replacements, energy carrying cable, road, installation and the several cities of people it would take to maintain. It isn't economically viable at planetary scale and current efficiency and manufacturing costs, and relies far too heavily on rare minerals.
It's the same mental failure that leads to "if we can just capture 1% of the market" style companies: they completely fail to take into account how much work it takes and how difficult it is to achieve something like that.
It'd create a whole lot less pollution to just knock the garbage into the atmosphere with a mass driver than to burn up than to make nearly a hundred times as many manned space flights as have ever been made (276 as of end-May 2009) to go do janitorial duty. The energy cost of 18,000 space flights- 836,000 gallons per flight - would be enough to run the United States electrical grid at current draw for nearly six hundred years.
I'd tell Cringely not to quit his computer commentary job, but, well, he was just as bad at that.
The extension of consoles is the defacto behavior for consoles, and always has been. In modern times it's been things like Wii Fit, the Eye Toy and so on, but nobody here has forgotten the Power Glove or the Power Mat, the Sega CD and the Sega 32x, and indeed that pattern goes back into the 70s, with the Intellivision overlay system and the Commodore 64 Extender.
Indeed, it's only the last generation or two which have skipped it. Anyone who believes this is new has only been gaming through one generation of consoles, and that should be their first red flag that they're not ready to talk about the history of gaming.
Since you thought Obama ousted Bush, then cried "well I can't be expected to know about America", I hope you'll do us the service of shutting up about your fantasies about our police. You know nothing about them, and we have enough of them that individuals who make poor choices which are regurgitated by the media can make us look a lot worse than we actually are.
Go flip through an Orwell book and masturbate to how urbane you are. Even SlashDot sees through you.
"How intimately familiar should I be with the constitution of every foreign (for me) country?"
Not at all. Fully for just the ones you attempt to make public commentary about.
Funny thing about making concrete statements in public: when you're wrong, people get annoyed with you, even if later you act like the thing you chose to take a stand on is something you shouldn't be required to know about.
The parent poster's point was that Obama didn't oust GWB. Our presidents may only serve two terms. GWB was, in effect, ousted by Hoover in 1947.
Generally speaking, when you open your mouth, try to restrain what words come out of you to those pertaining to things you understand.
Hi, 1993 calling. We've had FTL information transfer since the first co-vibrated Bose Einstein condensate. Since your knowledge of science appears to be based largely in science fiction, you may believe you know what this is under the name "ansible".
FTL communication was laboratory demonstrated sixteen years ago. Stop telling yourself that you know things you don't actually know.
Oh jesus, dude, you aren't going to let go until you feel correct, are you? Go away, please. I don't care if you know what obsequious means. It's clear that you don't know what an obsequium is, don't know that there are other related forms, don't understand that just because you've heard it wrong doesn't mean the word's meaning has changed, and don't understand that people don't care when you jump into other people's conversations swinging around definitions that don't come close to saying what you claim.
#1: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery
Actual text: "Promptly obedient, or submissive, to the will of another; compliant; yielding to the desires of another; devoted." Does not say anything about trying to win favor, says nothing about flattery, says nothing about influential people. Actual meaning: "being obedient", just like I said.
#2: Pejorative sense of "fawning, sycophantic" had emerged by 1599 [sycophant n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.]
Amusingly, you don't seem to know what a perjorative sense is; that isn't a definition, that's a connotation. Actual text, carefully edited to make you look right when you weren't: "c.1450, "prompt to serve," from L. obsequiosus "compliant, obedient," from obsequium "compliance, dutiful service," from obsequi "to accommodate oneself to the will of another," from ob "after" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). Pejorative sense of "fawning, sycophantic" had emerged by 1599 (implied in obsequiously)."
Note that it's, again, very clearly about being obedient.
#3: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery
That's from the clip-art quotes collection from a thesaurus, not a dictionary, douche. Also, it's from Princeton WordNet. Funny thing about Princeton WordNet: it's community written, and therefore has all the authority of Wikipedia. More than once I have caught people editing it to create correctness where none existed prior.
Note the complete lack of etymology, reference, citation or lexicon. You might as well have posted a GeoCities address. You will never, ever find this sense in an edited academic book of any nature either in definition or in usage.
Amusingly, your so-called source #4 is actually the same as source #3, because you didn't even bother to verify the legitimacy of your "evidentiary claims" before posting them. You posted the same source twice, because you're so sloppy that you don't bother to look at who you're quoting. I bet it's never even occurred to you that a definition you google up on the web might be wrong.
Go home, kid. You don't know enough about how to do linguistic research to play ball here.
Christ's sake, editing away the front of definitions and going for colloquialist connotation as evidence of denotative meaning? If you knew more about language than you do, you would be deeply ashamed right now.
Please don't bother replying, as I will not be reading your hilariously inappropriate or carefully edited sources any further. Every single one of your legitimate sources disagrees with you when you haven't edited the hell out of the text.
"Hi, I got paid money by a large publishing house, then I disagreed with the business model they paid to create, so now I'm encouraging people to steal from the company that paid me all that money."
What a scumbag. I hope he's never published again. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong; he accepted money to engage in a business model that he's now actively trying to destroy.
Web dictionaries aren't quality reference; an etymological lexicon is your next stop. However, every single one of those definitions from all four low quality, unmaintained sources actually hinges on being obediend.
Great grandparent is not correct, even if you find a website which agrees with him; that you have not this time is merely amusing, not definitive.
Please read the definitions before posting them next time. There isn't a single definition there which doesn't require the ostensibly obsequious person to be bowing to another person's will.
Because it's breaking a business relationship for the acts of a third party. Also, that isn't what obsequious means, nor is that what blather means. Obsequious means obedient, and I am not following Toyota's instructions; blather means nonsense text, and whether or not you agree with what I'm saying, you are not having difficulty interpreting my meaning.
When you're criticizing someone, please use words you understand in the future, thanks kindly.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation, please? Their shareholder prospectus says 97% of their revenue is from AdWords.
Why do you believe otherwise?
If you had said that three years ago, I would have agreed, sadbear and lamenting, having made extensive commentary about how far ahead of the curve Nintendo was.
Two years ago I'd have pointed out that three Japanese manufacturers were making them and that they were selling well.
Last year I'd have pointed out that half of PC manufacturers were making them, they started at $700 and that they were selling very well.
Today I can point out that Hewlett Packard's second best selling laptop is a convertible tablet (indeed I'm using it right now.)
Things change. Yes, I was an early adopter, but the world has caught up.
This used to be true. It isn't anymore. Notably, this will be true of the Apple device that you're suggesting is indication that there's now a market, so I'm not sure what this was meant to prove.
HP, Lenovo and Dell have tablets that are very reasonably priced for the hardware inside.
Er, mine isn't a turion, and mine doesn't have terrible construction. Please stick to the facts.
Ahem. Convertible tablet, not tablet. Convertible means "it's a laptop with a keyboard and a trackpad whose screen can fold over". Nobody is ditching their keyboards and trackpads.
Uh, what? It's too late for that. Almost every manufacturer has a convertible now, and the ones which don't have frequently said they're underway. Apple isn't breaking any new ground here; the Apple fan habit of casting everything into "everyone's following apple" is nasty and disingenuous.
Apple fans have a borderline fantastical ability to ascribe everyone else's actions to Apple, but when you turn around and point out how other companies moved first, Apple fans often say "well there wasn't a market before and Apple broke it and everyone followed Apple."
No. Apple is the follower. They haven't invented anything in a long, long time. I'd ask you for examples, but I gave that up a long time ago, when I learned that showing Apple fans who the real inventor was doesn't really get them out of their fantasy worlds.
Please re-read context. I've been talking about convertibles the entire time. Try reading. (Incidentally, Apple is almost certainly making a convertible. Yes, I know, that's not what the story says, but on the balance, consider what the iPhone stories said.)
When is the last time you were surprised by how you interacted with an Apple product?
They said that about the iPhone, too. They were wrong then, too.
When will you wake up to all the marketing you're falling for?
Well, it isn't on my iPhone. And the iPhone has been out and worked on for a very long time.
I'm reminded of my Mac friends being unable to eject CDs.
Dude they can't even make a phone I don't need a keyboard for. Try using just a little bit of skepticism some time.
Google also didn't have plans to make an operating system, a phone, a phone os, an instant messenger, a usenet application or a social network.
So yeah, this isn't Genron. Really.
My iPhone just isn't that big a deal. I don't understand why everyone thinks the iSlate will be.
I'm using a convertible tablet right now, and I've been using them for ten years. Big whoop, Apple's making one.
Yawn.
There's a large, easily felt physical outcropping which is one of several significant stimulus points. Maybe it's not the grafenberg spot, but it's what we think of when we hear g-spot.
There's a reason that people believe in this thing, ask for it to be stimulated on certain moods, et cetera.
When I was there, RUCS (Rutgers University Computing Services) ran a campus of around 18k people from four active student admins and eleven never-seen never-active bureacratic staff. So that gives a ratio of about 4500:1. It's worse if you consider time of day, though: that was three during the day (6000:1) and one at night (18000:1).
Disclaimer: it's been almost 15 years, the school's size may have changed, and there's an outside chance that RUCS might have gotten rid of their dead weight and gotten their shit together.
There's a long history of games that try to be realistic with one-hit kills and body disabling; Bushido Blade in particular tried to make an enormous selling point of it, but I can name dozens of these games off of the top of my head.
None of them are popular. It's not that they're too difficult; there are many far more difficult games out there with enormous cult followings (R-Type, the 2d Prince of Persia games, Puzzle Fighter 2T and Solomon's Key come to mind).
It's that when you get hit once and go down, it feels cheap; like cheating.
They don't do well in the market because we're so used to video game laws that more realistic laws leave your player feeling ripped off.
The only game I'm aware of that ever got popular with a bunch of one-hit kills is Dragon's Lair, and I maintain that that's more about the ridiculously high production values for the day; nobody plays that game today, or even five years after it was contemporary, and there's a reason for that.
And don't kid yourself into thinking it's about hardware; laser disc hardware is still in production, and people fly over the moon to get 49-way laser joysticks for their Sinistar consoles.
It's because this "oh my god have to be real" thing doesn't lead to fun games. Stopping and starting over at the slightest mistake doesn't make good entertainment.
Incidentally, real humans can usually take several bullets which aren't headshorts or heartshots.
Basically no, you can't keep them out. Get a better host, who respects your privacy.
There's a downside: most diagnostics aren't possible without root, and it's quite likely that most of your small outages they really don't know about. If you seal them out of root, you're on your own up to the ethernet plug.
Some hosts will be happy to be told to GTFO the box, because it means less work for them. Be aware that if you tell a host to GTFO the box, they're not likely to stand behind you if the FBI says you have kiddie porn or warez or so on.
Then why intelligent design? Why the existing climate controversy?
I think the Wall Street Journal has a higher opinion of yesterday's average person than was warranted. People haven't automatically listened to well educated people that study things for their entire lives for several decades now.
The ability to google compelling-sounding things has turned us into a nation of people who think they're experts at everything.
There's already a very good book along those lines (affiliate link to "On Food And Cooking").
You should be calculating the amount of uranium in the surface of the earth, not the volume. Deep mining is less realistic than asteroid mining; it's unlikely to ever happen. Practically speaking, at current demand and growth rates, with enrichment, u238 buys us only a couple hundred years. ("Only.")
But hey, eventually we'll switch to the thorium cycle, and then fusion, and scarcity will actually vanish.
Because cute infopics about what a supposedly tiny fraction of the desert would need to be covered in solar panels fail to take account the tremendous cost of infrastructure in frames, replacements, energy carrying cable, road, installation and the several cities of people it would take to maintain. It isn't economically viable at planetary scale and current efficiency and manufacturing costs, and relies far too heavily on rare minerals.
It's the same mental failure that leads to "if we can just capture 1% of the market" style companies: they completely fail to take into account how much work it takes and how difficult it is to achieve something like that.
It'd create a whole lot less pollution to just knock the garbage into the atmosphere with a mass driver than to burn up than to make nearly a hundred times as many manned space flights as have ever been made (276 as of end-May 2009) to go do janitorial duty. The energy cost of 18,000 space flights- 836,000 gallons per flight - would be enough to run the United States electrical grid at current draw for nearly six hundred years.
I'd tell Cringely not to quit his computer commentary job, but, well, he was just as bad at that.
The extension of consoles is the defacto behavior for consoles, and always has been. In modern times it's been things like Wii Fit, the Eye Toy and so on, but nobody here has forgotten the Power Glove or the Power Mat, the Sega CD and the Sega 32x, and indeed that pattern goes back into the 70s, with the Intellivision overlay system and the Commodore 64 Extender.
Indeed, it's only the last generation or two which have skipped it. Anyone who believes this is new has only been gaming through one generation of consoles, and that should be their first red flag that they're not ready to talk about the history of gaming.
Could not be less correct.
The book belongs to the publisher, not to him; that's why he had to ask them for permission, to which they said "no".
I cannot imagine why you believe this. No publisher works this way.
The United States of America.
Since you thought Obama ousted Bush, then cried "well I can't be expected to know about America", I hope you'll do us the service of shutting up about your fantasies about our police. You know nothing about them, and we have enough of them that individuals who make poor choices which are regurgitated by the media can make us look a lot worse than we actually are.
Go flip through an Orwell book and masturbate to how urbane you are. Even SlashDot sees through you.
"How intimately familiar should I be with the constitution of every foreign (for me) country?"
Not at all. Fully for just the ones you attempt to make public commentary about.
Funny thing about making concrete statements in public: when you're wrong, people get annoyed with you, even if later you act like the thing you chose to take a stand on is something you shouldn't be required to know about.
The parent poster's point was that Obama didn't oust GWB. Our presidents may only serve two terms. GWB was, in effect, ousted by Hoover in 1947.
Generally speaking, when you open your mouth, try to restrain what words come out of you to those pertaining to things you understand.
You'll get used to the silence.
Hi, 1993 calling. We've had FTL information transfer since the first co-vibrated Bose Einstein condensate. Since your knowledge of science appears to be based largely in science fiction, you may believe you know what this is under the name "ansible".
FTL communication was laboratory demonstrated sixteen years ago. Stop telling yourself that you know things you don't actually know.
Oh jesus, dude, you aren't going to let go until you feel correct, are you? Go away, please. I don't care if you know what obsequious means. It's clear that you don't know what an obsequium is, don't know that there are other related forms, don't understand that just because you've heard it wrong doesn't mean the word's meaning has changed, and don't understand that people don't care when you jump into other people's conversations swinging around definitions that don't come close to saying what you claim.
Actual text: "Promptly obedient, or submissive, to the will of another; compliant; yielding to the desires of another; devoted." Does not say anything about trying to win favor, says nothing about flattery, says nothing about influential people. Actual meaning: "being obedient", just like I said.
Amusingly, you don't seem to know what a perjorative sense is; that isn't a definition, that's a connotation. Actual text, carefully edited to make you look right when you weren't: "c.1450, "prompt to serve," from L. obsequiosus "compliant, obedient," from obsequium "compliance, dutiful service," from obsequi "to accommodate oneself to the will of another," from ob "after" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). Pejorative sense of "fawning, sycophantic" had emerged by 1599 (implied in obsequiously)."
Note that it's, again, very clearly about being obedient.
That's from the clip-art quotes collection from a thesaurus, not a dictionary, douche. Also, it's from Princeton WordNet. Funny thing about Princeton WordNet: it's community written, and therefore has all the authority of Wikipedia. More than once I have caught people editing it to create correctness where none existed prior.
Note the complete lack of etymology, reference, citation or lexicon. You might as well have posted a GeoCities address. You will never, ever find this sense in an edited academic book of any nature either in definition or in usage.
Amusingly, your so-called source #4 is actually the same as source #3, because you didn't even bother to verify the legitimacy of your "evidentiary claims" before posting them. You posted the same source twice, because you're so sloppy that you don't bother to look at who you're quoting. I bet it's never even occurred to you that a definition you google up on the web might be wrong.
Go home, kid. You don't know enough about how to do linguistic research to play ball here.
Christ's sake, editing away the front of definitions and going for colloquialist connotation as evidence of denotative meaning? If you knew more about language than you do, you would be deeply ashamed right now.
Please don't bother replying, as I will not be reading your hilariously inappropriate or carefully edited sources any further. Every single one of your legitimate sources disagrees with you when you haven't edited the hell out of the text.
"Hi, I got paid money by a large publishing house, then I disagreed with the business model they paid to create, so now I'm encouraging people to steal from the company that paid me all that money."
What a scumbag. I hope he's never published again. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong; he accepted money to engage in a business model that he's now actively trying to destroy.
Whichever. I lol'd and friended.
Web dictionaries aren't quality reference; an etymological lexicon is your next stop. However, every single one of those definitions from all four low quality, unmaintained sources actually hinges on being obediend.
Great grandparent is not correct, even if you find a website which agrees with him; that you have not this time is merely amusing, not definitive.
Please read the definitions before posting them next time. There isn't a single definition there which doesn't require the ostensibly obsequious person to be bowing to another person's will.
To wit, he attempted to argue the point, which suggests that now in the future he continues to misunderstand said words.
That said, the syntax clearly applies the timeline to the suggestion, rather than to the denomination.
That's a very interesting idea, and I'd do it if I had the language skills. However, I do not.
If you were to write something like that for us phonetically, we'd probably do it.
Because it's breaking a business relationship for the acts of a third party. Also, that isn't what obsequious means, nor is that what blather means. Obsequious means obedient, and I am not following Toyota's instructions; blather means nonsense text, and whether or not you agree with what I'm saying, you are not having difficulty interpreting my meaning.
When you're criticizing someone, please use words you understand in the future, thanks kindly.