I though RT was jailbroken shortly after release? But Maybe there weren't drivers or something - certainly it didn't catch on.
BTW, do you use Debian/Mint? Like it? Does it have a task bar? I'm done with Unity (it's bad enough I have to use Metro at work), and I'd like to try something new.
Well, the way I see it is that Metro is good for "lean back" computer use. There are Metro apps for Netflix, Kindle, Audible, etc - all the big media consumption apps.
There's a very special role for Office - especially on the phone. No one's going to want to spend much time fiddling with Excel or PowerPoint without a keyboard, but to project from your phone is awesome. I've done this using a remote desktop product for my Android phone, and giving a presentation using just your phone is just right. Office on the Windows phone can do that without porting to Metro (and, really, if I spent all day holding meetings I'd likely get a Win phone just for that).
Perhaps it's with.NET that Microsoft began not eating their own dog food anymore, as they bolted it on Office, instead of rewriting Office in.NET.
On the one hand, that would probably cost MS $1 Billion, which is a lot to spend an not get a new product. OTOH: they wasted that billion anyhow, so, yeah.
Oh, sorry, lost track of what thread I was on - your reply was perfectly on topic for a thread on different story entirely.
Yeah, the meat thing is an interesting highlight on technology really. Even in the early 20th century, a family would spend half its income on food, and meat was a luxury, and the rich really could eat that much more than the poor. Today everyone (in the US) can afford meat with every meal. That's happened with all of the basics, really. The upper middle class is about what you eat/wear/drive/etc, now how much (that was always true of the upper class, but the upper class in America is very much out of the spotlight: we talk about "the rich", not "the upper class").
I believe that as automation replaces all the manufacturing and paper-shuffling jobs, the same thing will happen to services - all the stuff that previously only the rich had done by servants, I expect all of us who aren't engineers will be doing for one another - P2P services.
I'm sure the headline will be reprinted as "In the news: 140,000 Escape Burning Teslas, Ford Recalls". And I hear those SpaceX rockets catch fire every time they're launched!
It's the myth that will never die: that paper comes from old growth. Maybe some forests were still being cleared for the first time for paper 30 or 40 years ago - maybe. But the vast majority of paper comes from land that has been tree farms since most of us were born, and will be put to some other commercial use as we need less paper. Tree farming is about the most environmentally friendly commercial use for land available, though I guess grazing land for cattle isn't bad either.
Windows phone is matching iPhone in parts of Europe, but both are tiny compared to Android. You don't think tablets will go the same way? I got a free Samsung table with my TV - unlike MS, Samsung isn't shy about giving them away to gain market share.
Well, if you want a tablet for just web browsing, kindle, audible, and Netflix, and lots of people do, those WinRT tablets were fine. But the price was insane for that. The product had a market, but never at that price. Really, what were they thinking?
It's fine with any touch interface, not just a phone. I hear it works well with the Xbone gesture interface too. I hope so, as Julie Larson-Green used to be in charge of Windows (I blame her for the horror of Metro on a real PC), but seems to be over X-Box after the re-org. Maybe her ideas will make some sense on a console - at least she'll be better that the previous guy, Mr "you'll eat your DRM, and you'll like it!"
I'm hopeful once more for Windows 9 - seems like odd numbered Windows, like even-numbered Star Treks, are the way to go.
Yes, meat used to be a luxury few could afford, now the poor eat more meat than is healthy, because it's so damn plentiful. But total US farmland shrinks every decade, and total forest area grows every decade. Technology happens.
Right, just light there are no lamp-lighters, and artisans from carpenter to blacksmith to cooper to wheeler to, well, all the common profession-last-names are all niche professions. Times change, but when it doesn't take people to provide the old services everyone wants more, new services. Education is a government mess, but Americas poor people, well, lets just say they aren't missing any meals. Or pies.
Seriously, if factories are making enough stuff for everyone, then either there are big piles of rotting stuff, or everyone has that stuff. The money will sort itself out. Every previous tech revolution has eliminated wide swaths of jobs, and every time the desire for more stuff has kept employment going in new trades. What do you think has changed? Concentration of wealth? Nothing like previous centuries. Corporations? They predate the industrial revolution. Government corruption? Ha! Treasury bankrupt? Every government ever!
I was on the topic of whether "the corporations" own both parties. My point was that "own" is too strong a claim, as evidenced by the NSA. The government does more evil than just the bidding of "the corporations".
Now to expect American corporations to openly defy American law would be a bit too far in the other direction, no?
Why do you imagine that Google is happy that it gave data to the NSA, and is now losing business as the result? Google definitely isn't happy that the NSA was tapping their inter-data-center links.
No, the NSA was not some creation of Goole et al.
Now, if you want to assert that "there are some powerful people who both own shares in large corporations and have lots of influence over the government", then sure, that seems obvious. But there's not some nefarious conspiracy of random corporations to control the government just to mess with you; well, other than the MPAA/RIAA, but they lost all sanity long ago. Some of the government's actions are clearly to benefit influential corporations, but the government has plenty of time left over to screw with you in many, unrelated ways.
So, looking out the my window, I see an absurd number of Tesla's bought by people who work for a living. While expensive, it's still just 1 car. (And the very rich tend to have cars around that price point - Mercedes E-class and Jeep Grand Cherokee are popular among the wealthiest - something nice enough, but won't draw unwanted attention). There aren't 100 fewer cars on the roads because someone buys 1 luxury car.
In fact, the people at the top are having more and more and the rest are having less and less. That is real and measurable
One last time for the fans: only if you conflate wealth and stuff: stop doing that, they are disjoint sets. There are plenty of big screen TVs, X-Boxes, and nice tennis shoes in poor neighborhoods in America.
Do you imagine the price of those robot made shoes will be zero? Because if it's more than zero, the unemployed won't be able to afford them.
Why would you imaging everyone unemployed simply because there are no manufacturing jobs. Almost no one has a manufacturing job today. We'll mostly be performing services for one another, I'd expect.
Tree farms are very environmentally friendly as farming goes - they don't involve intense fertilization or ever-higher-dose insecticides the way, say, corn does (or for that matter, a golf course). And since those trees spend a lot of time growing before the harvest, they do the nice things trees do for the atmosphere. I'm not so sure about the soil, as that's all about the tree-fungus symbiosis, and I'm, not sure haw fast that happens.
Or were you under the false impression that paper was made from old-growth trees? Trees for paper are just a multi-year crop, farmed like any other crop.
What is Plus500, an exchange? It doesn't seem to be legal in the US. What's I'd like to see is something you can buy through a broker, like the gold ETFs.
My blind guess is people using it to transfer funds illegally. You don't really care what it's worth if you only need it for a couple of hours, but the amounts could be so high that it's causing a demand spike.
On a monitor I can understand the appeal: I want resolution so ridiculously high that serif fonts look right (there are fonts that look off at 600 DPI, and need 1200 DPI to look right), but color correctness and wide color gamut are far more important to me, so I care much more about OLED.
On a TV I just don't get it: I can barely tell the difference between DVD and 1080p resolution on a 65" TV. I mean, it's a great step up from my old 460p set for reading text when used as a monitor, but when watching a film I just don't see what the fuss is about.
I have a feeling that 1600p will be like Bluray vs DVD - it will only take off when there's no price difference, so you might as well.
Heh - I strongly suspect the only 3D Bluray I will ever own is the Doctor Who 50th. My TV does the whole 3D thing (not that I cared, it just came that way), and I bought a 3D-capable bluray player (for all of $20 extra), but I've yet to open the box of 3D glasses that came with the TV.
3D is such a silly gimmick that only my raving fanboyism will make me watch it.
Did they do that "backgrounding disguised as trivia questions" where you saw it? I think I got all of them, which afterwards made me feel quite the pathetic nerd (that and the fact that I went in costume, but then I dress like Christopher Eccleston's Doctor normally, his "costume" being a black leather jacket). Well, at least I'm not a Star Trek/Wars nerd - I still have some dignity.
Maybe - but the point is that per-book royalties tend to be low compared to the per-book equivalent of an advance that doesn't earn out. Heck, if the book flops, the advance can me more than the price of the book, per-book. But editors are pretty good at predicting book sales, so that rarely happens.
Printed books have an extremely low cost for reproduction, is the thing. Charlie Stross wrote a great explanation of the common misperceptions about publishing. Looks like he just updated it last week, It's definitely worth a read before pulling numbers out of your ass for how much a book "should" cost.
BTW, best-selling authors often get less per book sold than mid-tier authors. Most titles don't "earn out" their advance, so the author is making more per book than the per-book royalty (of course, that's far less total money).
Slashdot Mirror
I though RT was jailbroken shortly after release? But Maybe there weren't drivers or something - certainly it didn't catch on.
BTW, do you use Debian/Mint? Like it? Does it have a task bar? I'm done with Unity (it's bad enough I have to use Metro at work), and I'd like to try something new.
Well, the way I see it is that Metro is good for "lean back" computer use. There are Metro apps for Netflix, Kindle, Audible, etc - all the big media consumption apps.
There's a very special role for Office - especially on the phone. No one's going to want to spend much time fiddling with Excel or PowerPoint without a keyboard, but to project from your phone is awesome. I've done this using a remote desktop product for my Android phone, and giving a presentation using just your phone is just right. Office on the Windows phone can do that without porting to Metro (and, really, if I spent all day holding meetings I'd likely get a Win phone just for that).
Perhaps it's with .NET that Microsoft began not eating their own dog food anymore, as they bolted it on Office, instead of rewriting Office in .NET.
On the one hand, that would probably cost MS $1 Billion, which is a lot to spend an not get a new product. OTOH: they wasted that billion anyhow, so, yeah.
Oh, sorry, lost track of what thread I was on - your reply was perfectly on topic for a thread on different story entirely.
Yeah, the meat thing is an interesting highlight on technology really. Even in the early 20th century, a family would spend half its income on food, and meat was a luxury, and the rich really could eat that much more than the poor. Today everyone (in the US) can afford meat with every meal. That's happened with all of the basics, really. The upper middle class is about what you eat/wear/drive/etc, now how much (that was always true of the upper class, but the upper class in America is very much out of the spotlight: we talk about "the rich", not "the upper class").
I believe that as automation replaces all the manufacturing and paper-shuffling jobs, the same thing will happen to services - all the stuff that previously only the rich had done by servants, I expect all of us who aren't engineers will be doing for one another - P2P services.
I think if you're taking marketing advice form someone who says "when you're doing your next online shop" you've already lost.
I'm sure the headline will be reprinted as "In the news: 140,000 Escape Burning Teslas, Ford Recalls". And I hear those SpaceX rockets catch fire every time they're launched!
It's the myth that will never die: that paper comes from old growth. Maybe some forests were still being cleared for the first time for paper 30 or 40 years ago - maybe. But the vast majority of paper comes from land that has been tree farms since most of us were born, and will be put to some other commercial use as we need less paper. Tree farming is about the most environmentally friendly commercial use for land available, though I guess grazing land for cattle isn't bad either.
No, since the Surface Pro runs normal Windows, and everything has the Metro. RT isn't "tablet" or "metro", it's "low power processor".
Don't forget the Itanic! Oh, if only I could forget that one.
Nah, Surface 2 is a very high-end tablet: Microsoft Ceiling Cat.
Windows phone is matching iPhone in parts of Europe, but both are tiny compared to Android. You don't think tablets will go the same way? I got a free Samsung table with my TV - unlike MS, Samsung isn't shy about giving them away to gain market share.
C'mon,stick with the marketing. Vista was an expansive failure!
Well, if you want a tablet for just web browsing, kindle, audible, and Netflix, and lots of people do, those WinRT tablets were fine. But the price was insane for that. The product had a market, but never at that price. Really, what were they thinking?
And Metro sucks on anything other than a phone.
It's fine with any touch interface, not just a phone. I hear it works well with the Xbone gesture interface too. I hope so, as Julie Larson-Green used to be in charge of Windows (I blame her for the horror of Metro on a real PC), but seems to be over X-Box after the re-org. Maybe her ideas will make some sense on a console - at least she'll be better that the previous guy, Mr "you'll eat your DRM, and you'll like it!"
I'm hopeful once more for Windows 9 - seems like odd numbered Windows, like even-numbered Star Treks, are the way to go.
Yes, meat used to be a luxury few could afford, now the poor eat more meat than is healthy, because it's so damn plentiful. But total US farmland shrinks every decade, and total forest area grows every decade. Technology happens.
Right, just light there are no lamp-lighters, and artisans from carpenter to blacksmith to cooper to wheeler to, well, all the common profession-last-names are all niche professions. Times change, but when it doesn't take people to provide the old services everyone wants more, new services. Education is a government mess, but Americas poor people, well, lets just say they aren't missing any meals. Or pies.
Seriously, if factories are making enough stuff for everyone, then either there are big piles of rotting stuff, or everyone has that stuff. The money will sort itself out. Every previous tech revolution has eliminated wide swaths of jobs, and every time the desire for more stuff has kept employment going in new trades. What do you think has changed? Concentration of wealth? Nothing like previous centuries. Corporations? They predate the industrial revolution. Government corruption? Ha! Treasury bankrupt? Every government ever!
I was on the topic of whether "the corporations" own both parties. My point was that "own" is too strong a claim, as evidenced by the NSA. The government does more evil than just the bidding of "the corporations".
Now to expect American corporations to openly defy American law would be a bit too far in the other direction, no?
Why do you imagine that Google is happy that it gave data to the NSA, and is now losing business as the result? Google definitely isn't happy that the NSA was tapping their inter-data-center links.
No, the NSA was not some creation of Goole et al.
Now, if you want to assert that "there are some powerful people who both own shares in large corporations and have lots of influence over the government", then sure, that seems obvious. But there's not some nefarious conspiracy of random corporations to control the government just to mess with you; well, other than the MPAA/RIAA, but they lost all sanity long ago. Some of the government's actions are clearly to benefit influential corporations, but the government has plenty of time left over to screw with you in many, unrelated ways.
So, looking out the my window, I see an absurd number of Tesla's bought by people who work for a living. While expensive, it's still just 1 car. (And the very rich tend to have cars around that price point - Mercedes E-class and Jeep Grand Cherokee are popular among the wealthiest - something nice enough, but won't draw unwanted attention). There aren't 100 fewer cars on the roads because someone buys 1 luxury car.
In fact, the people at the top are having more and more and the rest are having less and less. That is real and measurable
One last time for the fans: only if you conflate wealth and stuff: stop doing that, they are disjoint sets. There are plenty of big screen TVs, X-Boxes, and nice tennis shoes in poor neighborhoods in America.
Do you imagine the price of those robot made shoes will be zero? Because if it's more than zero, the unemployed won't be able to afford them.
Why would you imaging everyone unemployed simply because there are no manufacturing jobs. Almost no one has a manufacturing job today. We'll mostly be performing services for one another, I'd expect.
Tree farms are very environmentally friendly as farming goes - they don't involve intense fertilization or ever-higher-dose insecticides the way, say, corn does (or for that matter, a golf course). And since those trees spend a lot of time growing before the harvest, they do the nice things trees do for the atmosphere. I'm not so sure about the soil, as that's all about the tree-fungus symbiosis, and I'm, not sure haw fast that happens.
Or were you under the false impression that paper was made from old-growth trees? Trees for paper are just a multi-year crop, farmed like any other crop.
What is Plus500, an exchange? It doesn't seem to be legal in the US. What's I'd like to see is something you can buy through a broker, like the gold ETFs.
My blind guess is people using it to transfer funds illegally. You don't really care what it's worth if you only need it for a couple of hours, but the amounts could be so high that it's causing a demand spike.
On a monitor I can understand the appeal: I want resolution so ridiculously high that serif fonts look right (there are fonts that look off at 600 DPI, and need 1200 DPI to look right), but color correctness and wide color gamut are far more important to me, so I care much more about OLED.
On a TV I just don't get it: I can barely tell the difference between DVD and 1080p resolution on a 65" TV. I mean, it's a great step up from my old 460p set for reading text when used as a monitor, but when watching a film I just don't see what the fuss is about.
I have a feeling that 1600p will be like Bluray vs DVD - it will only take off when there's no price difference, so you might as well.
Heh - I strongly suspect the only 3D Bluray I will ever own is the Doctor Who 50th. My TV does the whole 3D thing (not that I cared, it just came that way), and I bought a 3D-capable bluray player (for all of $20 extra), but I've yet to open the box of 3D glasses that came with the TV.
3D is such a silly gimmick that only my raving fanboyism will make me watch it.
Did they do that "backgrounding disguised as trivia questions" where you saw it? I think I got all of them, which afterwards made me feel quite the pathetic nerd (that and the fact that I went in costume, but then I dress like Christopher Eccleston's Doctor normally, his "costume" being a black leather jacket). Well, at least I'm not a Star Trek/Wars nerd - I still have some dignity.
Maybe - but the point is that per-book royalties tend to be low compared to the per-book equivalent of an advance that doesn't earn out. Heck, if the book flops, the advance can me more than the price of the book, per-book. But editors are pretty good at predicting book sales, so that rarely happens.
Printed books have an extremely low cost for reproduction, is the thing. Charlie Stross wrote a great explanation of the common misperceptions about publishing. Looks like he just updated it last week, It's definitely worth a read before pulling numbers out of your ass for how much a book "should" cost.
BTW, best-selling authors often get less per book sold than mid-tier authors. Most titles don't "earn out" their advance, so the author is making more per book than the per-book royalty (of course, that's far less total money).