Actually not any more accurate - just a little quicker to hit a specific object.
Of course it is, and that's the reason it's quicker. If you were just as accurate with your finger on an ipad as you are with a mouse on a computer you wouldn't need to know what's under your finger with that magnifying glass.
The fine control simply requires slightly different UI but is still just as direct.
That's why it's less efficient though, having to change UI to get finer control. I mean your mouse cursor comes to a point, giving you much more accuracy.
And do not forget that it's not like the magnifier slows down or in any way alters your input - it simply is there to show you what your finger is covering, but otherwise your finger is perfectly capable of moving the cursor to an exact spot in 12 point text.
Perhaps, but actually manipulating that text, like doing cut and paste is not nearly as fast, nor is typing on a virtual keyboard vs a tactile computer keyboard. Im getting faster on the ipad keyboard but i can't see ever being able to be faster and more accurate than a normal keyboard.
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
I'd guess - and im not necessarily saying this is correct - that most Mac users have a false sense of security, the sort of 'Macs don't have viruses therefore Macs can't get viruses.'
I am curious if long term this will help security. Windows is the prime target for attackers, but I'm sure there are many 0-day exploits waiting in other operating systems. However, if administered right, Windows can be pretty secure.
Time will tell if this actually reduces compromises. I'm interested in seeing the results over the long term, just to be objective.
Exactly, imagine everyone ran linux systems and did so as root in the same way the majority of Windows XP users run as Administrator. Shell scripts attached to emails that infect system files would run rampant. A hell of a lot of the virus/malware can be attributed to the user running an application with privileges it shouldn't have, so the fact that windows is the dominant OS just means it cops it more than any other. I mean how would linux - or OSX for that matter - cope if everyone ran it and they all ran as root?
Exactly! But i can see how the model works for large commercial products, if a large company needs feature X they can employ a group of devs to implement it and the money is made back through the use of that feature. But what if a bunch of individuals need feature X? Who pays for development of it? Does the FSF expect they would all get together and contract out the development to a team?
FSF seems to think developers should work for free (as in cost for the FSF-types who would be confused if i didn't clarify that), what other industry would be happy to do that? I don't think anyone would be happy to provide products for no more than the cost of raw materials and only charge for maintenance.
better than a computer at manipulating on-screen objects since you are directly working with them via your hands.
That's a bit broad, better if you are moving large objects and they don't have to be placed particularly accurately, which is the reason they give you that magnifying glass when moving the caret in a text field instead of just pressing to place it in the spot you want. Certainly not better for manipulating text or accurately positioning objects, but more often more intuitive for pushing things around.
The biggest annoyance is the press-and-hold to do stuff, it's like simulating a right-click on the desktop by pressing and holding down the left mouse button.
I still want to know where I can find this bloody free beer.
It's a myth.
Personally, I hold that "free" has referred to "without cost" for significantly longer than Stallman's newspeak "as in freedom" when in the context of products. Therefore, I reject Stallman's definition of "free".
As do 99.9% of people...i can't think of the last time - actually any time - i've told someone something was free and they weren't sure whether i meant cost or freedom, it's always cost.
Not to mention that the reality of Free Software is that it becomes free as in cost anyway, so anyone who worked hard on developing software as a job to put food on the table effectively doesn't get paid during development, the idea is that hopefully they can get paid for support.
However; if you didn't pay for it, and can see it, then it is both free and open.
But then it's only free as in 'free beer', you are not free to use it as you please so it's not 'free as in freedom'...bloody hell these OSS, FOSS, FSF, terms are irritating.
Actually if you look the RSS it comes through as Apple, and you can then of course filter it out of your main feed if you don't want Apple stories, that is unless of course you're just the kind of dumbass that isn't capable of that and just likes to complain. But thanks for being an ignorant douchebag.
10 REM Hello World in BASIC
20 PRINT "Hello World!"
Computers these days are much more capable entertainment devices than they were when we were kids, i doubt 'Hello World' is going to be as fascinating to kids who have machines far more capable than those of our time.
I'm no fanboy but at least I'm not a hypocrite...Flash sucks, always has, always will....regardless of who choses to support it and who doesn't. FFS people, one would think you'd be happy that a company (in this case Apple) is trying to champion an open standard (HTML5) to free you from the shackles of requiring a compiled binary made especially for your system.
But why try and kill off flash before HTML5 is a standard, before it has tools for designers to create comparable content?
How are designers to create things like this and this in HTML5?
Kill Flash now and hope that HTML5 fills the gap is not the right attitude. Keep supporting Flash, then when/if HTML5 becomes a ratified standard, has tools available to create the same content AND is proven to not suffer the deficiencies of Flash, THEN it's time for Flash to go.
Most snazzy flash UI's on websites are just slow and bloated. ANY page with a "Skip Intro" button I can guarantee you should have never had the damned intro there in the first place.
And things will be different in HTML5, being as it's just as capable a set of technologies as Flash?
Also, I'd estimate that over 80% of the Flash 'developers' are too stupid to program in any other way than dragging and copy-pasting some ActionScript together.
Probably because they are designers, not programmers. HTML5 needs tools for designers if it is to be successful.
A bunch of technologies that you have to stitch together is not the same as a single environment that encapsulates all the interactive features and - for now at least - that matters. The reason is because Flash (as a technology) is more than just the runtime, it also includes the development environment, i wish there was a Flash-esque environment for HTML5 technologies, a way that they can be seamlessly tied together, then the fact that they aren't a unified platform wouldn't matter. But for now I don't see many designers opting for HTML5 over Flash when aiming for a Flash-like experience. Hopefully this will change, it would be nice to see a Flash CS environment that outputs HTML5 and associated files.
Not everything flash is bad: http://www.homestarrunner.com/, although I suppose that site *could* theoretically be done with SVG...
That's right, the problem though is that while what Flash does can be accomplished by stringing together a bunch of technologies tied to HTML5 there is still no even half-decent way for designers to do this. There is no tool or suite of tools to create a comparable Flash-like experience in HTML5 the way there is with Flash, this leads to designers needing to do a larger amount of coding and one thing we all know is that while just about anyone can program, not many people can program well. Sure there are complaints about the speed and resource use of Flash but the more code that you make designers (who aren't programmers) write, the more inefficient and resource-hungry websites will be out there. It's quite easy to inadvertently develop a unnecessarily overly resource-hungry web app with HTML5 technologies.
Im not really a fan of Flash, i won't be sad to see it go as a defacto standard and i would suggest that isn't too far off, and im not a web dev or designer, but i can see that for HTML5 to replace Flash there are going to need to be comparable tools available to content creators and for browser support for it to reach the same levels as Flash installations. It's not enough to just have a bunch of technologies that, put together, are capable of what Flash is.
No. That is not a required argument for the fact that "it's the laws that count, not your idea of common sense".
Of course the laws count, but only if they exist, do they? If they don't exist then they don't count at all.
Even if there was NO law regulating it, your idea of common sense would STILL have no bearing. What is so hard to understand about that?
Im not suggesting it affects the legality of it, but it is certainly the fault of no-one other than person broadcasting the information unencrypted if that information falls into someone else's hands.
The same as with the Kovco files, left unencrypted in a public place, predominantly the blame lies with the person who failed to secure the private data. Or with GCHQ's loss of laptops, the intelligence leak was the fault of GCHQ, sure the people who found the information were not doing the right thing but it was the fault of GCHQ for failing to secure the information that created that situation.
You can't just leave your personal information unprotected in a public place and accept no responsibility if someone gets a hold of it. If you want it to stay private then it is your responsibility to make some kind of an effort to keep it that way instead of broadcasting it out to the public where anyone can just listen in.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually not any more accurate - just a little quicker to hit a specific object.
Of course it is, and that's the reason it's quicker. If you were just as accurate with your finger on an ipad as you are with a mouse on a computer you wouldn't need to know what's under your finger with that magnifying glass.
> Remember, the only serious thing an iPad is good > for is serious content consumption
Bullshit. You add an accessory Bluetooth keyboard and it turns into a PC replacement that easily replaces XP for most users.
You can't zip up and send files
You can't receive and unzip files
You can't print
You can't connect any usb devices
Useless encryption
No decent audio/video/image editing
No Flash/Silverlight
No Java Applets
You can't even activate it without a PC
The only thing that's Bullshit is your idea that the average user does not need/want to do any of the above things.
they just now figured out that memset() is supposed to be able to write values other than zero.
Looks more like a coding error than a lack of understanding...hence the fact that the function definition specified the data all along.
The fine control simply requires slightly different UI but is still just as direct.
That's why it's less efficient though, having to change UI to get finer control. I mean your mouse cursor comes to a point, giving you much more accuracy.
And do not forget that it's not like the magnifier slows down or in any way alters your input - it simply is there to show you what your finger is covering, but otherwise your finger is perfectly capable of moving the cursor to an exact spot in 12 point text.
Perhaps, but actually manipulating that text, like doing cut and paste is not nearly as fast, nor is typing on a virtual keyboard vs a tactile computer keyboard. Im getting faster on the ipad keyboard but i can't see ever being able to be faster and more accurate than a normal keyboard.
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
I'd guess - and im not necessarily saying this is correct - that most Mac users have a false sense of security, the sort of 'Macs don't have viruses therefore Macs can't get viruses.'
I am curious if long term this will help security. Windows is the prime target for attackers, but I'm sure there are many 0-day exploits waiting in other operating systems. However, if administered right, Windows can be pretty secure.
Time will tell if this actually reduces compromises. I'm interested in seeing the results over the long term, just to be objective.
Exactly, imagine everyone ran linux systems and did so as root in the same way the majority of Windows XP users run as Administrator. Shell scripts attached to emails that infect system files would run rampant. A hell of a lot of the virus/malware can be attributed to the user running an application with privileges it shouldn't have, so the fact that windows is the dominant OS just means it cops it more than any other. I mean how would linux - or OSX for that matter - cope if everyone ran it and they all ran as root?
Exactly! But i can see how the model works for large commercial products, if a large company needs feature X they can employ a group of devs to implement it and the money is made back through the use of that feature. But what if a bunch of individuals need feature X? Who pays for development of it? Does the FSF expect they would all get together and contract out the development to a team?
FSF seems to think developers should work for free (as in cost for the FSF-types who would be confused if i didn't clarify that), what other industry would be happy to do that? I don't think anyone would be happy to provide products for no more than the cost of raw materials and only charge for maintenance.
better than a computer at manipulating on-screen objects since you are directly working with them via your hands.
That's a bit broad, better if you are moving large objects and they don't have to be placed particularly accurately, which is the reason they give you that magnifying glass when moving the caret in a text field instead of just pressing to place it in the spot you want. Certainly not better for manipulating text or accurately positioning objects, but more often more intuitive for pushing things around.
The biggest annoyance is the press-and-hold to do stuff, it's like simulating a right-click on the desktop by pressing and holding down the left mouse button.
At least Apple is upfront and takes its users privacy seriously. But then I suppose some do not value their individuality as much as others.
Shame they aren't as serious about security.
I still want to know where I can find this bloody free beer.
It's a myth.
Personally, I hold that "free" has referred to "without cost" for significantly longer than Stallman's newspeak "as in freedom" when in the context of products. Therefore, I reject Stallman's definition of "free".
As do 99.9% of people...i can't think of the last time - actually any time - i've told someone something was free and they weren't sure whether i meant cost or freedom, it's always cost.
Not to mention that the reality of Free Software is that it becomes free as in cost anyway, so anyone who worked hard on developing software as a job to put food on the table effectively doesn't get paid during development, the idea is that hopefully they can get paid for support.
awww have a cry
That sounds more like a Free Software definition than an Open Source definition.
However; if you didn't pay for it, and can see it, then it is both free and open.
But then it's only free as in 'free beer', you are not free to use it as you please so it's not 'free as in freedom'...bloody hell these OSS, FOSS, FSF, terms are irritating.
Actually if you look the RSS it comes through as Apple, and you can then of course filter it out of your main feed if you don't want Apple stories, that is unless of course you're just the kind of dumbass that isn't capable of that and just likes to complain. But thanks for being an ignorant douchebag.
An Apple story in the Apple section?! What is the world coming to? ...oh no i just spotted a Linux story in the Linux section!
10 REM Hello World in BASIC 20 PRINT "Hello World!"
Computers these days are much more capable entertainment devices than they were when we were kids, i doubt 'Hello World' is going to be as fascinating to kids who have machines far more capable than those of our time.
right you are!
If I had a magical land, there would be no ASSHOLES, so your post wouldn't be here to reply to.
And you'd just be full of shit.
lol...yep 4^10
But yes it does depend almost wholly on how long it takes the device to validate the code.
I'm no fanboy but at least I'm not a hypocrite...Flash sucks, always has, always will....regardless of who choses to support it and who doesn't. FFS people, one would think you'd be happy that a company (in this case Apple) is trying to champion an open standard (HTML5) to free you from the shackles of requiring a compiled binary made especially for your system.
But why try and kill off flash before HTML5 is a standard, before it has tools for designers to create comparable content?
How are designers to create things like this and this in HTML5?
Kill Flash now and hope that HTML5 fills the gap is not the right attitude. Keep supporting Flash, then when/if HTML5 becomes a ratified standard, has tools available to create the same content AND is proven to not suffer the deficiencies of Flash, THEN it's time for Flash to go.
Most snazzy flash UI's on websites are just slow and bloated. ANY page with a "Skip Intro" button I can guarantee you should have never had the damned intro there in the first place.
And things will be different in HTML5, being as it's just as capable a set of technologies as Flash?
Also, I'd estimate that over 80% of the Flash 'developers' are too stupid to program in any other way than dragging and copy-pasting some ActionScript together.
Probably because they are designers, not programmers. HTML5 needs tools for designers if it is to be successful.
Looks like you never heard of HTML5. *facepalm*
Lo and behold HTML 5.
A bunch of technologies that you have to stitch together is not the same as a single environment that encapsulates all the interactive features and - for now at least - that matters. The reason is because Flash (as a technology) is more than just the runtime, it also includes the development environment, i wish there was a Flash-esque environment for HTML5 technologies, a way that they can be seamlessly tied together, then the fact that they aren't a unified platform wouldn't matter. But for now I don't see many designers opting for HTML5 over Flash when aiming for a Flash-like experience. Hopefully this will change, it would be nice to see a Flash CS environment that outputs HTML5 and associated files.
Not everything flash is bad: http://www.homestarrunner.com/, although I suppose that site *could* theoretically be done with SVG...
That's right, the problem though is that while what Flash does can be accomplished by stringing together a bunch of technologies tied to HTML5 there is still no even half-decent way for designers to do this. There is no tool or suite of tools to create a comparable Flash-like experience in HTML5 the way there is with Flash, this leads to designers needing to do a larger amount of coding and one thing we all know is that while just about anyone can program, not many people can program well. Sure there are complaints about the speed and resource use of Flash but the more code that you make designers (who aren't programmers) write, the more inefficient and resource-hungry websites will be out there. It's quite easy to inadvertently develop a unnecessarily overly resource-hungry web app with HTML5 technologies.
Im not really a fan of Flash, i won't be sad to see it go as a defacto standard and i would suggest that isn't too far off, and im not a web dev or designer, but i can see that for HTML5 to replace Flash there are going to need to be comparable tools available to content creators and for browser support for it to reach the same levels as Flash installations. It's not enough to just have a bunch of technologies that, put together, are capable of what Flash is.
No. That is not a required argument for the fact that "it's the laws that count, not your idea of common sense".
Of course the laws count, but only if they exist, do they? If they don't exist then they don't count at all.
Even if there was NO law regulating it, your idea of common sense would STILL have no bearing. What is so hard to understand about that?
Im not suggesting it affects the legality of it, but it is certainly the fault of no-one other than person broadcasting the information unencrypted if that information falls into someone else's hands.
The same as with the Kovco files, left unencrypted in a public place, predominantly the blame lies with the person who failed to secure the private data. Or with GCHQ's loss of laptops, the intelligence leak was the fault of GCHQ, sure the people who found the information were not doing the right thing but it was the fault of GCHQ for failing to secure the information that created that situation.
You can't just leave your personal information unprotected in a public place and accept no responsibility if someone gets a hold of it. If you want it to stay private then it is your responsibility to make some kind of an effort to keep it that way instead of broadcasting it out to the public where anyone can just listen in.