Try reading one outside, or even on public transport or too near a window in your office.
I frequently do, on my cell phone and iPod. Maybe you have a bad LCD screen.
Pixel Qi and Nokia screens remain readable under any illumination, even if the backlight is overwhelmed.
Can you be a bit more specific as to why you hate eInk? It is pretty much the same as reading paper (since it is a matte display with ink on it)
Simple: it has slow refresh, low contrast, and bad/no color. Those problems are compounded by really bad user interfaces.
eInk also requires a separate backlight in low light.
Sure, the refresh rate is low, but not that much lower than my page turning or newspaper flipping speed.
A newspaper has 1-2 orders of magnitude as many pixels as an eInk display, so it's OK if flipping takes a little longer.
An eInk display is closer to a small paperback in size and resolution. I can flip through a small paperback in a few seconds. Try that with an eInk display.
very few people have ever tried to read an entire novel on a computer screen... its damn challenging
For "eyestrain" it doesn't make a difference whether you're reading code, the web, or a novel. And people spend many hours each day in front of computer screens, most of them without eyestrain.
Books and eInk, on the other hand, also cause eyestrain. It's not the backlighting, it's other factors.
lies...
I think your moronic commentary speaks for itself.
So why not buy any one of the netbooks, phones or tablets that have been around for years?
What makes you think I haven't? But their physical form factors, weights, and battery life aren't even close to this, mostly because they try to be powerful enough to run Windows.
And this isn't mainstream (it's only just been announced), and there is no way to know if it will be.
It's an Apple product; the Apple fanbase will buy it no matter what. And my hope is that it will encourage others to deliver cheaper and better devices based on Android and Chrome OS.
Stop imagining things. Flash works and is widely used even on the desktop. It's easy to sandbox Flash because it usually doesn't do anything other than display stuff and make HTTP connections.
These objections are even more silly on the iPad/iPod where applications are so isolated from each other anyway and where there is so little user data other than commercial audio and video.
Other personal data should be encrypted anyway, in which case sandboxing becomes even more effective. Of course, Apple doesn't. When Apple plays so fast and loose with security anyway, Flash is really the last of your worries.
Apple needs to add full sandboxing and data encryption to all their systems. After that, discussions about theoretical risks from Flash become academic. And unless you are intrinsically opposed to executable content (do you browse with JavaScript off?), Flash is no worse than JavaScript, Java, etc.
I don't like Flash as a technology, but to object on it the grounds you do is silly and stupid.
(Also, your understanding of sandboxes is rather faulty, but that's really not the point here.)
WASP is "white Anglo-Saxon protestant". Southern and Eastern European is definitely not WASP, since they are usually neither Anglo-Saxon nor protestant.
And where are Republicans supposed to come from if not WASP, Irish, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, or black? Is the Republican party only made up of Indians, Native Americans, Chinese, and Japanese? Or what?
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Give me a real conservative to vote for, someone who stays out of both my pocket book and my bedroom, someone who restores free markets, someone who slashes corporate subsidies, and someone who restores the principle of personal responsibility in areas such as drugs and medical care and I will vote for him.
Sadly, the closest to a conservative in US politics are Democrats; while far from perfect conservatives, they do better in terms of liberties and fiscal responsibility. Republicans, on the other hand, restrict liberties, want a nanny state, are fiscally irresponsible, and waste even more money than the Democrats on their corporate buddies; Republicans, sadly, are even less conservative than Democrats.
And your Mac can be made more secure by removing OS X. What's your point?
I don't like Flash, but like it or not, there's a lot of content available in it. And the reason Apple isn't offering it has nothing to do with security, it has to do with wanting to control the app store.
I know this comes as a surprise to US users, but in many countries, you get multiple SIM cards on the same contract for no or little extra money. Put one in your phone, one in your reader, one in your laptop, etc. Nice, eh?
Apple really isn't that innovative, they are simply 6-18 months earlier shipping something. They can get away with that because they can charge a premium. So, you get a $800 iPad with OS X today, or a $300 Chrome OS pad next year.
Making bad proteins wastes energy and may even kill the cell, so there's selective pressure against making them.
Also, even more simply, the genetic code has some redundancy built in, so some mutations don't change the protein. In addition, mutations in introns don't change the protein.
Every "fact" you think you know about history is someone's spin on something, and even if it's close to a "raw fact" that something happened on such-and-such a date, the only reason you know that thing is because someone was biased enough to single out that particular event and that particular date over trillions of other things that happened and nobody cared enough about to tell you about it.
That view of history is completely and inexcusably wrong. It's the kind of apologetics that organizations engage in who have a historical record that they are ashamed of.
In fact, many historical facts are supported by records that have no particular bias, viewpoint, or historical purpose: census records, birth/death records, business records. Many involve no human record keeping at all, they are based on archaeological finds. Many other historical facts have been documented by the perpetrators of crimes themselves.
Our interpretation of historical facts may change over time; for example, we don't interpret "Manifest Destiny", the Holocaust, or the "Holy Inquisition" in the same way we used to. Furthermore, the kinds of facts we decide to research and document change depending on what historical questions we ask today. But the historical facts and events themselves don't change.
Horizontal gene transfer has been known for a long time, as has its influence on bacterial evolution. So, there is really little fundamentally new insight in this paper.
If they're really as corrupt as you seem to think, there are simpler solutions than having a place called the "Secret Archives" where nuts like yourself can dream about what's in there...
I'm not "dreaming" about anything. If you think that I expect any smoking guns from the Vatican archives, you're mistaken. I mean, how much worse than the well-documented historical record of crimes and corruption could it possibly get?
No, a complete disclosure of the Vatican archives would simply help with getting an objective assessment of the evolution of the theology and philosophy of the Catholic church.
No European archive will submit to that sort thing!
No European archive has the kind of despicable history that the Vatican has. And no European archive claims that it represents the one true religion or that it is the ultimate arbiter in moral questions.
The Vatican owes the world a complete disclosure of all of its archives, including, but not limited to, its "Secret Archives".
But the molten phase is simply molten carbon; it doesn't matter what solid phase it came from. And when that liquid freezes, it's diamond only because of the ambient pressure, not because of any property of the liquid.
Slashdot Mirror
Try reading one outside, or even on public transport or too near a window in your office.
I frequently do, on my cell phone and iPod. Maybe you have a bad LCD screen.
Pixel Qi and Nokia screens remain readable under any illumination, even if the backlight is overwhelmed.
Can you be a bit more specific as to why you hate eInk? It is pretty much the same as reading paper (since it is a matte display with ink on it)
Simple: it has slow refresh, low contrast, and bad/no color. Those problems are compounded by really bad user interfaces.
eInk also requires a separate backlight in low light.
Sure, the refresh rate is low, but not that much lower than my page turning or newspaper flipping speed.
A newspaper has 1-2 orders of magnitude as many pixels as an eInk display, so it's OK if flipping takes a little longer.
An eInk display is closer to a small paperback in size and resolution. I can flip through a small paperback in a few seconds. Try that with an eInk display.
very few people have ever tried to read an entire novel on a computer screen... its damn challenging
For "eyestrain" it doesn't make a difference whether you're reading code, the web, or a novel. And people spend many hours each day in front of computer screens, most of them without eyestrain.
Books and eInk, on the other hand, also cause eyestrain. It's not the backlighting, it's other factors.
lies...
I think your moronic commentary speaks for itself.
So why not buy any one of the netbooks, phones or tablets that have been around for years?
What makes you think I haven't? But their physical form factors, weights, and battery life aren't even close to this, mostly because they try to be powerful enough to run Windows.
And this isn't mainstream (it's only just been announced), and there is no way to know if it will be.
It's an Apple product; the Apple fanbase will buy it no matter what. And my hope is that it will encourage others to deliver cheaper and better devices based on Android and Chrome OS.
Stop imagining things. Flash works and is widely used even on the desktop. It's easy to sandbox Flash because it usually doesn't do anything other than display stuff and make HTTP connections.
These objections are even more silly on the iPad/iPod where applications are so isolated from each other anyway and where there is so little user data other than commercial audio and video.
Other personal data should be encrypted anyway, in which case sandboxing becomes even more effective. Of course, Apple doesn't. When Apple plays so fast and loose with security anyway, Flash is really the last of your worries.
Apple needs to add full sandboxing and data encryption to all their systems. After that, discussions about theoretical risks from Flash become academic. And unless you are intrinsically opposed to executable content (do you browse with JavaScript off?), Flash is no worse than JavaScript, Java, etc.
I don't like Flash as a technology, but to object on it the grounds you do is silly and stupid.
(Also, your understanding of sandboxes is rather faulty, but that's really not the point here.)
Should he be jailed?
Yes.
Clear enough?
WASP is "white Anglo-Saxon protestant". Southern and Eastern European is definitely not WASP, since they are usually neither Anglo-Saxon nor protestant.
And where are Republicans supposed to come from if not WASP, Irish, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, or black? Is the Republican party only made up of Indians, Native Americans, Chinese, and Japanese? Or what?
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Give me a real conservative to vote for, someone who stays out of both my pocket book and my bedroom, someone who restores free markets, someone who slashes corporate subsidies, and someone who restores the principle of personal responsibility in areas such as drugs and medical care and I will vote for him.
Sadly, the closest to a conservative in US politics are Democrats; while far from perfect conservatives, they do better in terms of liberties and fiscal responsibility. Republicans, on the other hand, restrict liberties, want a nanny state, are fiscally irresponsible, and waste even more money than the Democrats on their corporate buddies; Republicans, sadly, are even less conservative than Democrats.
And your Mac can be made more secure by removing OS X. What's your point?
I don't like Flash, but like it or not, there's a lot of content available in it. And the reason Apple isn't offering it has nothing to do with security, it has to do with wanting to control the app store.
Wow, Slashdot group-think at its best again.
Let me say that again: I have tried eInk devices and I hated them. So have many others.
I have no problem reading on LCD screens. Neither do hundreds of millions of other people.
Actually, turns out it comes in 3G versions as well, so you can use it directly.
I know this comes as a surprise to US users, but in many countries, you get multiple SIM cards on the same contract for no or little extra money. Put one in your phone, one in your reader, one in your laptop, etc. Nice, eh?
Apple really isn't that innovative, they are simply 6-18 months earlier shipping something. They can get away with that because they can charge a premium. So, you get a $800 iPad with OS X today, or a $300 Chrome OS pad next year.
And LCD screens are poor for serious reading
You just go on believing that.
I have tried a bunch of eInk devices and they are complete junk. I have been waiting for a mainstream LCD-based electronic reader.
Flash can be made completely secure by sandboxing it at the OS level. If iPhone can't do it, it's a problem with its OS, not with Flash.
You can use this as a mobile device by tethering it over Wifi to an Android or Noikia device.
If Apple legitimizes 10" OLED tablets with capacitive screens as a product category, that's great. I really loathe the eInk readers.
However, I still prefer Android or Chrome as the OS, over OS X.
Making bad proteins wastes energy and may even kill the cell, so there's selective pressure against making them.
Also, even more simply, the genetic code has some redundancy built in, so some mutations don't change the protein. In addition, mutations in introns don't change the protein.
I really don't see anything unexpected there.
Apparently you have lost complete track of the context of this discussion. I suggest you go back and re-read it.
Every "fact" you think you know about history is someone's spin on something, and even if it's close to a "raw fact" that something happened on such-and-such a date, the only reason you know that thing is because someone was biased enough to single out that particular event and that particular date over trillions of other things that happened and nobody cared enough about to tell you about it.
That view of history is completely and inexcusably wrong. It's the kind of apologetics that organizations engage in who have a historical record that they are ashamed of.
In fact, many historical facts are supported by records that have no particular bias, viewpoint, or historical purpose: census records, birth/death records, business records. Many involve no human record keeping at all, they are based on archaeological finds. Many other historical facts have been documented by the perpetrators of crimes themselves.
Our interpretation of historical facts may change over time; for example, we don't interpret "Manifest Destiny", the Holocaust, or the "Holy Inquisition" in the same way we used to. Furthermore, the kinds of facts we decide to research and document change depending on what historical questions we ask today. But the historical facts and events themselves don't change.
Yeah, but bullshit. Replication and transcription errors follow pretty straightforward laws.
Horizontal gene transfer has been known for a long time, as has its influence on bacterial evolution. So, there is really little fundamentally new insight in this paper.
DIY Bio is novel, and sciencey, which makes it OOH Scary
If only that were the case; sadly, it isn't. DIY biology is extremely dangerous in a way that no other technology to date has been.
If they're really as corrupt as you seem to think, there are simpler solutions than having a place called the "Secret Archives" where nuts like yourself can dream about what's in there...
I'm not "dreaming" about anything. If you think that I expect any smoking guns from the Vatican archives, you're mistaken. I mean, how much worse than the well-documented historical record of crimes and corruption could it possibly get?
No, a complete disclosure of the Vatican archives would simply help with getting an objective assessment of the evolution of the theology and philosophy of the Catholic church.
No European archive will submit to that sort thing!
No European archive has the kind of despicable history that the Vatican has. And no European archive claims that it represents the one true religion or that it is the ultimate arbiter in moral questions.
The Vatican owes the world a complete disclosure of all of its archives, including, but not limited to, its "Secret Archives".
But the molten phase is simply molten carbon; it doesn't matter what solid phase it came from. And when that liquid freezes, it's diamond only because of the ambient pressure, not because of any property of the liquid.
Sure? From what I'm looking at, OS X uses an X server with modifications... I'd say a pretty damn important part of the GUI layer is FOSS-based...
Sadly, OS X uses its own, proprietary graphics server called "Quartz". It's slower, less functional, and more resource intensive than X11.