Right now, Siri can look up some stuff, is great with my calendar, messages, etc. I'm limited to interacting with it via voice.
In the future, with appropriate investment, there is no reason that Siri can't be omnipresent throughout the device offering a few helpful options at the touch of a button. It would no longer be limited to voice controls.
something that's useful 10% of the time is an amazing advance. I would personally have gone about 5%
It's never a drawback, because you never have to use it. Perhaps with a year or two worth of data Siri can double its usefulness.
Also keep in mind that Siri is 85% speech recognition, and 15% AI. With Apples cash reserves if they choose to pursue the AI side a little further we could see huge advancements.
You feel that a voice interface makes people useless and dependant? Do you intentionally only communicate between other people using morse code via hand signals? (that's just the least user friendly and effective method I could think of)
Sometimes I weep for the stupidity of humanity... I can't even laugh at you because it's just not funny... it's fucking scary
I'm going to do you a favour and explain what you just did that was stupid, rather than just calling you stupid and moving on:
You started by insisting, quite incorrectly, that ongoing hardware costs were a large investment. Much larger than the $99 developer subscription fee.
I implied, quite correctly, that if your app tanks you shouldn't be continuing to shell out cash for hardware upgrades.
You came back and, quite incorrectly, began insisting that the app store was a casino and that somehow you've lost twice the actual subscription fee and hardware costs (as if it's somehow taken away).
Every new company start up -exactly what writing apps is- is a risk. The cost of this particular risk is far less than the rent on most retail spaces. The app store is no more a casino than I am a fish.
I hope you understand now, when I call you a blithering idiot and move on.
I didn't see you point out marketing; and I'm not even talking about advertising.
It took me *ages* to find a useful repository browser that allowed for full editing and repo management for the iPad. It isn't because it didn't exist, it's because it was so damn hard to figure out what the apps actually did.
Did they support authenticated svn? Did they allow tabbed editing? How well were differences handled? etc. etc. etc.
Eventually, I found one that suited my purpose wonderfully for a mere $6 or so. I've been a happy camper ever since but they only made that sale because they finally wrote a reasonable description.
Now what I'm saying isn't exactly separate from usefulness. But my point is that other apps quite likely do the same things, maybe even better, but if they don't convey that to me effectively I'll never risk supporting crap software.
First: If you aren't giving a young child $10 worth of entertainment budget a month you're a goddamn monster. That's less than most toys, and far less than a couple of movie rentals or what-have-you.
Second: If you can't afford $10 a month, you shouldn't be having kids.
Third: Having such a budget will invariably teach the child something about budgeting and responsibility.
Fourth and last, if you can't afford $10 a month... forget kids *Why do you have a luxury tech gadget?*
as should in-game purchase settings be set to disabled by default.
Go. To. Hell.
I don't have kids, and you have absolutely no right to fuck up my experience on the device because you can't control your fucking kids.
Apple has amazing parental controls, the best I have ever seen for a phone or music player. Parent's that are unwilling or unable to control their children can fuck right off.
You honestly don't think that someone who is arrested and sent to jail (to await trial) has a stigma attached to them when they get out 12 months later, as is the case in some murder trials.
You don't think it changes the conditions at work assuming they still have/can get a job after?
You're arguing the strictly *current* legal interpretation of "innocent until proven guilty". I'll put it as politely as possible by saying that is incredibly naive. The only way you can legitimately believe and argue that law is separate from the morals by which it is begotten is to believe that law should not seek to be moral.
Again I am not suggesting that a proper system that avoids these problems is feasible under the current socio-economic climate, but it doesn't make not having it any less wrong.
Well frankly if we're talking about innocence until proven guilty, the far bigger issue is that we put people in jail before they've even been put on trial.
But I don't disagree with you, a proper legal system would establish that the act was committed by the person in question, put them in jail if appropriate (up to the minimum sentence period) and use that time to figure out the specifics that effect the sentence.
However I have no idea how one goes about building such a system without *massive* resources available.
No, just like with murder charges wilfulness is important.
When you put someone on trial for first degree murder you're saying "we think they commited murder, but specifically we think they did it entirely wilfully and planned ahead" (give or take)
They're saying that in the event that the basic charges are found to be true, they'll assess whether it was a simple fuckup on Google's part or whether they knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
Look at that map, it clearly shows that the dataset they're pulling from isn't even meaningfully above the noise level. They say ~33% of the stations they surveyed had negative temperature trends (over 70 years... two stations within the same city have completely opposing trends over seventy. goddamn. years.)
This study and those like it will have zero credibility until someone can explain WHY stations right next to each other have such large discrepancies, and can ACCURATELY model those discrepancies.
Once someone can give me sensible and reproducible information on the data these studies are based on, I will start giving the conclusions drawn from it some weight. There simply is no conclusion to be made until the data is sound.
What I'm implying, is that you're trolling and (now clearly) an idiot.
If those tablets came out AFTER the iPad, then they were almost certainly started AFTER the iPad. So regardless, they come AFTER the iPad in your little graphic.
First: the problem isn't new devices, it's ones that are already in use.
Second: Apple does everything reasonable to keep the users safe. Including requiring new devices accessing an Apple ID to reconfirm credit information (by re-inputting some parts of it)
As has been said, people are retards. When you have 200 million retards together, 700 getting screwed is LOW. The fact that the number isn't more like 7 million means Apple's system is staggeringly good.
It's quite true that moving solar panels takes energy, and it's entirely possible that a configuration could be achieved that obtains a clean-room efficiency higher than (tracking panel - motor energy).
Notice though, that I said clean-room. Just wait until birds start nesting in your artificial trees, or a wind storm starts knocking panels off. Not to mention the added cost of building the tree to put the panels on in the first place.
If we're going to examine the issues related to flat panels, let's not ignore the issues caused by that.... thing. Again, a good paper would have at least hinted at such possible issues.
I'm sure you are right in using "most", but I have been to concerts and watched some artists whip out an iPad and check their twitter feed or post a photo from stage (John Mayer, for example, uses twitter to get requests from the audience).
Again, you said most and I'm sure you're correct in that. But it is *definitely* not all.
Look, I get that the kid is 13. The very fact that he attempted something like this is awesome and he probably could have a bright future as a scientist.
But his experiment, and his conclusions are complete shit. Rotating the flat panel will enable it to collect many times what the tree can (which rotating does nothing for). He's either got more panels on the tree, or 2 sets of 10 flat panels facing opposite each other (which is just fucking stupid).
Bottom line, the kids science was utter bullshit. I salute the fact that he tried and I think he should get recognition *from his parents* and encouraged to do proper science in the future.
Rewarding shit science breeds shit science; award someone for it and they'll never strive to be better.
Slashdot Mirror
The very fact that you bring lolcats into the discussion speaks volumes about your maturity and intelligence.
When you have a life, and something meaningful to contribute to society we'll talk.
I should have clarified actually:
When I said advancements in AI, I mean this:
Right now, Siri can look up some stuff, is great with my calendar, messages, etc. I'm limited to interacting with it via voice.
In the future, with appropriate investment, there is no reason that Siri can't be omnipresent throughout the device offering a few helpful options at the touch of a button. It would no longer be limited to voice controls.
Great, I completely agree with you!
something that's useful 10% of the time is an amazing advance. I would personally have gone about 5%
It's never a drawback, because you never have to use it. Perhaps with a year or two worth of data Siri can double its usefulness.
Also keep in mind that Siri is 85% speech recognition, and 15% AI. With Apples cash reserves if they choose to pursue the AI side a little further we could see huge advancements.
You couldn't be more wrong.
When I'm driving, talking to my device is the *only* meaningful way to communicate with it.
When I'm running, talking to my device is the *only* meaningful way to communicate with it.
Not to mention the fact that it *is* quicker for me to say "Siri, move my next appointment to 2:30" than actually do it myself.
You're cherry picking bad scenarios either due to jealousy or ignorance, I'm just not sure which.
Really?
Really!?
You feel that a voice interface makes people useless and dependant? Do you intentionally only communicate between other people using morse code via hand signals? (that's just the least user friendly and effective method I could think of)
Sometimes I weep for the stupidity of humanity... I can't even laugh at you because it's just not funny... it's fucking scary
I'm going to do you a favour and explain what you just did that was stupid, rather than just calling you stupid and moving on:
You started by insisting, quite incorrectly, that ongoing hardware costs were a large investment. Much larger than the $99 developer subscription fee.
I implied, quite correctly, that if your app tanks you shouldn't be continuing to shell out cash for hardware upgrades.
You came back and, quite incorrectly, began insisting that the app store was a casino and that somehow you've lost twice the actual subscription fee and hardware costs (as if it's somehow taken away).
Every new company start up -exactly what writing apps is- is a risk. The cost of this particular risk is far less than the rent on most retail spaces. The app store is no more a casino than I am a fish.
I hope you understand now, when I call you a blithering idiot and move on.
If the app hasn't been making any profits for 2 or 3 years, do you really spend money on hardware upgrades to keep developing it?
I didn't see you point out marketing; and I'm not even talking about advertising.
It took me *ages* to find a useful repository browser that allowed for full editing and repo management for the iPad. It isn't because it didn't exist, it's because it was so damn hard to figure out what the apps actually did.
Did they support authenticated svn? Did they allow tabbed editing? How well were differences handled? etc. etc. etc.
Eventually, I found one that suited my purpose wonderfully for a mere $6 or so. I've been a happy camper ever since but they only made that sale because they finally wrote a reasonable description.
Now what I'm saying isn't exactly separate from usefulness. But my point is that other apps quite likely do the same things, maybe even better, but if they don't convey that to me effectively I'll never risk supporting crap software.
As with the other reply, this has nothing to do with iOS or Apple.
What you're saying is that creating a new business is risky? STOP THE PRESSES!
Try reading, and thinking... It does the mind good.
And those have nothing in particular to do with iOS or Apple, as I said in my post.
You should learn to read, it's a great skill to have.
it costs $99 a year to be an iOS developer. Assuming you also had to buy a mac, let's add $1000 (that'll get you a nice mac mini).
I hardly call that tragic losses.
*Note: those are the only two app store specific costs. Yeah people spend money making shitty software all the time, that's not unique to Apple or iOS
I have new advice: don't have anymore. You're too stupid to be in control of a human's development.
$10 a month minimum is perfectly reasonable.
First: If you aren't giving a young child $10 worth of entertainment budget a month you're a goddamn monster. That's less than most toys, and far less than a couple of movie rentals or what-have-you.
Second: If you can't afford $10 a month, you shouldn't be having kids.
Third: Having such a budget will invariably teach the child something about budgeting and responsibility.
Fourth and last, if you can't afford $10 a month... forget kids *Why do you have a luxury tech gadget?*
as should in-game purchase settings be set to disabled by default.
Go. To. Hell.
I don't have kids, and you have absolutely no right to fuck up my experience on the device because you can't control your fucking kids.
Apple has amazing parental controls, the best I have ever seen for a phone or music player. Parent's that are unwilling or unable to control their children can fuck right off.
You couldn't be more wrong, actually.
You honestly don't think that someone who is arrested and sent to jail (to await trial) has a stigma attached to them when they get out 12 months later, as is the case in some murder trials.
You don't think it changes the conditions at work assuming they still have/can get a job after?
You're arguing the strictly *current* legal interpretation of "innocent until proven guilty". I'll put it as politely as possible by saying that is incredibly naive. The only way you can legitimately believe and argue that law is separate from the morals by which it is begotten is to believe that law should not seek to be moral.
Again I am not suggesting that a proper system that avoids these problems is feasible under the current socio-economic climate, but it doesn't make not having it any less wrong.
Well frankly if we're talking about innocence until proven guilty, the far bigger issue is that we put people in jail before they've even been put on trial.
But I don't disagree with you, a proper legal system would establish that the act was committed by the person in question, put them in jail if appropriate (up to the minimum sentence period) and use that time to figure out the specifics that effect the sentence.
However I have no idea how one goes about building such a system without *massive* resources available.
No, just like with murder charges wilfulness is important.
When you put someone on trial for first degree murder you're saying "we think they commited murder, but specifically we think they did it entirely wilfully and planned ahead" (give or take)
They're saying that in the event that the basic charges are found to be true, they'll assess whether it was a simple fuckup on Google's part or whether they knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
not a lawyer, all that jazz.
You should try science sometime, you might learn something. If you learned something you might not be such a dumbass
From this very study:
Goto http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI
Scroll down to page 10.
Look at that map, it clearly shows that the dataset they're pulling from isn't even meaningfully above the noise level. They say ~33% of the stations they surveyed had negative temperature trends (over 70 years... two stations within the same city have completely opposing trends over seventy. goddamn. years.)
This study and those like it will have zero credibility until someone can explain WHY stations right next to each other have such large discrepancies, and can ACCURATELY model those discrepancies.
Once someone can give me sensible and reproducible information on the data these studies are based on, I will start giving the conclusions drawn from it some weight. There simply is no conclusion to be made until the data is sound.
What I'm implying, is that you're trolling and (now clearly) an idiot.
If those tablets came out AFTER the iPad, then they were almost certainly started AFTER the iPad. So regardless, they come AFTER the iPad in your little graphic.
No matter how you slice it, you're a retard.
You should look at release dates for those devices. The only two that look similar to the iPad came out months after.
But... you know... troll on.
First: the problem isn't new devices, it's ones that are already in use.
Second: Apple does everything reasonable to keep the users safe. Including requiring new devices accessing an Apple ID to reconfirm credit information (by re-inputting some parts of it)
As has been said, people are retards. When you have 200 million retards together, 700 getting screwed is LOW. The fact that the number isn't more like 7 million means Apple's system is staggeringly good.
It's quite true that moving solar panels takes energy, and it's entirely possible that a configuration could be achieved that obtains a clean-room efficiency higher than (tracking panel - motor energy).
Notice though, that I said clean-room. Just wait until birds start nesting in your artificial trees, or a wind storm starts knocking panels off. Not to mention the added cost of building the tree to put the panels on in the first place.
If we're going to examine the issues related to flat panels, let's not ignore the issues caused by that.... thing. Again, a good paper would have at least hinted at such possible issues.
I'm sure you are right in using "most", but I have been to concerts and watched some artists whip out an iPad and check their twitter feed or post a photo from stage (John Mayer, for example, uses twitter to get requests from the audience).
Again, you said most and I'm sure you're correct in that. But it is *definitely* not all.
Look, I get that the kid is 13. The very fact that he attempted something like this is awesome and he probably could have a bright future as a scientist.
But his experiment, and his conclusions are complete shit. Rotating the flat panel will enable it to collect many times what the tree can (which rotating does nothing for). He's either got more panels on the tree, or 2 sets of 10 flat panels facing opposite each other (which is just fucking stupid).
Bottom line, the kids science was utter bullshit. I salute the fact that he tried and I think he should get recognition *from his parents* and encouraged to do proper science in the future.
Rewarding shit science breeds shit science; award someone for it and they'll never strive to be better.