The problem is, the number of times I've needed to show photos and video clips is a few times a year. As nicely as a tablet does that job, it doesn't seem to be worth it for that. My dad wants one for a specific app that shows approach plates and other information valuable to pilots, but I don't know if it's terribly valuable if you can go online and print PDFs that show the same information, an occasional sheet of printed paper vs. a tablet seems to be very lop sided.
That's kind of sad, it seems like even people that are suspicious of government fall for it without asking questions. It's just one of those go-to conversation stoppers. I shudder to think if corrupt law enforcement start planting evidence.
Maybe, but does the article name any of these offending coffee shops that are supposedly banning e-readers? I can't find it. Why name *$ clearly but not name any of these shops that are supposedly banning e-readers? Starbucks was named three times in the article, twice in what looks like a veiled ad at the end of the article.
Also, the models of several ereaders are mentioned too. The generic term "e-reader" was used twice, but six times, specific brands of ereaders were named, Kindle three times, iPad twice and nook once. iPod music player was mentioned once.
It's not proof of anything, but I think it's really odd. It just has the feel of brand whoring, and looking out for a major advertiser while possibly smearing an industry of smaller players which might have a subtle impact on which establishment a reader might enter.
Surely they know what "penny wise, pound foolish" means? If that's not a phrase with British origins, they must have one like it. I wonder what it really costs to host the sites in question.
I agree the simplification is necessary for education. While Newtonian physics doesn't tell the whole story of physics, it's still useful for most human endeavors. In the grander scheme of the universe, it's wrong, but I've always understood it to be a useful simplification that the error is insignificant for most human needs on earth. For example, when doing mechanical engineering, I've never needed to perform relativistic portion of the calculations because the relativistic factor is far too small to be worth doing that math. In the other direction, for electrical engineering, I really don't need to keep quantum physics in mind all the time, I just needed the approximate equation that described the part's behavior.
I think there's a good chance that he's completely aware of that, but his target audience doesn't. There is plenty of money to be made by playing to specific sets of beliefs.
The Panda board looks very interesting, but keep in mind that's the bare board vs. a finished product with a sleek case and power supply for the same price, and a case can be a serious expense with low volume products like these. It doesn't look like there is a case available for Panda, first or third party, and that might be a consideration, depending on what you plan to do with it. Sometimes mounting it in a generic project box works, but sometimes it's not acceptable on the fit and finish.
Walter Murch is a well-respected film editor, and Roger Ebert is a well-respected movie reviewer, but they are also many decades older than the movie industry's typical target audience. Ebert was also very against digital projection a decade ago, but despite that, it's commonplace and is much better than it was a decade ago, most of the costs probably went down and the kinks have been mostly ironed out. I can't help but think there's a chance the same will happen with stereoscopic (3D) movies.
This weird form of popularism has become a way of attacking anyone with expertise. Elites are bad. People with specific knowledge are bad.
There is a grain of truth to it. Experts are often little better than anyone else outside the field of their expertise. But that doesn't mean that we should run to the imbecile, you make sure the expert is well-suited to the problem at hand. Another problem is that people often can't tell a real expert from an impostor. Voting for lawyers to political office makes sense in that way, but in writing law, they are easily in a position to help their own profession.
I think the problem is uneven deregulation. For example, uneven deregulation caused the S&L debacle, allowing S&Ls to pull all sorts of garbage and still be FDIC insured.
In short, in this case, the right of way is still too tightly regulated to allow for competition, only one cable company is allowed to lay cable wire for example.
There has to be some middle ground though. I resent the fact that only one of a particular kind of cable can be run, what that does is guarantee a monopoly over the specific type of services that use that kind of cable. Even a choice two DSL providers is better than just one.
A phone book just has a phone number and an address. Facebook has far more information on far more people than found in any given phone book. To add to this, children and teens normally aren't in a phone book but are in Facebook. For FB to give devs access to this all in a very tidy bundle with hardly any work is pretty scary. You just need to make a trojan and anyone that accepts it not only compromises their own information, also gives away information of everyone they're "friends" with.
Manufacturers of physical goods set a wholesale price and a recommended list price, or suggested list price. Some manufacturers use contracts to set a minimum advertised price (not that uncommon, you can sell for less, but can't advertise below the MAP outside the store), a few manufacturers don't allow any discounts at all.
It sounds like Amazon is taking the WalMart model even farther and setting the price they want to pay the developer too.
The mosquito illustration was probably throwing people off. I usually try to avoid such illustrations because you're going to get people that take it too far or argue about unimportant points, because the comparison is going to fail if it is taken to far, and it becomes a distraction.
I don't think it's anarchist to suggest reform, that would be a silly accusation to worry about.
Copyright law is very excessive right now, especially when you have a broadly interpreted meaning of "limited", which is functionally "forever" when it is often extended by 20 years every 20 years. They might not be able to extend it to 1000 years because that might actually be obvious to the judicial branch as a stretch on the interpretation of limited, several smaller steps might not cause any problems.
We have different ideas of necessity. Wanting to put killer criminals in jail time vs. execution is fine if you can apprehend them. The apprehension is a very key difference here. If you can't apprehend them, and the people that you don't want to kill are out there, still with weapons, still killing other people, then what? These criminals clearly don't have the scruples that you do, and these scruples can end in even more unnecessary deaths, this kind of criminal is probably more likely to be willing to kill many people rather than allow themselves to be captured.
Given that most people in Saudi Arabia aren't citizens because of extensive use of foreign labor, and the per-capita income of regular citizens is pretty low, I wonder if the citizens are really sympathetic to their king.
Not only that, does psychological profiling even work reliably? How reliable is it? It just strikes me as one of those HR fads that large organizations rush implement before it's really tested.
Isn't there something better than email? It's a pretty clumsy system and it's been poisoned with so much spam that it has to be too much of a hassle for people. I'm not sure there are any good clients for email either.
A "persona CMS" isn't really a solution yet, I'm surprised it was suggested.
I would bet very few of the people capable of setting up their "personal CMS" really care to spend time on it to build up the features they want, keep up with all the security patches for the CMS, various plug-ins and the underlying server. Even supposing it was a solution, then you have a matter of different friends and relatives having different CMSs and no simple means of accessing it at one site with one login. Such a system would make finding relatives a bit hard. Hopefully Diaspora solves all this, but until that's truly ready, I just don't see how a personal CMS can really take the place of anything that looks remotely like a social network.
[quote]Web 2.0 is when the corporations took over.[/quote]
I'm not convinced that this is necessarily causal, it is probably a coincidence. Most corporate web sites aren't what I think of as Web 2.0. There were plenty of corporations running the show with "Web 1.0", you couldn't get on the web without using products and services provided by corporations then either. Web 1.0 was also the era of Geocities, Tripod and the like, which wasn't a good thing either.
That's sometimes true, the trouble is that I'm finding software is often less reliable and slower than the same kind of software a decade ago. More maintainable code should mean that the product is more reliable. I don't see where security necessarily yields terribly slower software and much larger file sizes, unless you mean constant malware scanning. Software available today isn't necessarily more usable to novices or the experienced, so the suggestion of a better interface doesn't necessarily hold true.
I agree. Unfortunately, LCD TVs with LED back lighting appear to be widely marketed as LED TVs in ads, sales flyers and on the packaging. I really haven't been paying close attention to whether it's true with computer screens too.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, the number of times I've needed to show photos and video clips is a few times a year. As nicely as a tablet does that job, it doesn't seem to be worth it for that. My dad wants one for a specific app that shows approach plates and other information valuable to pilots, but I don't know if it's terribly valuable if you can go online and print PDFs that show the same information, an occasional sheet of printed paper vs. a tablet seems to be very lop sided.
That's kind of sad, it seems like even people that are suspicious of government fall for it without asking questions. It's just one of those go-to conversation stoppers. I shudder to think if corrupt law enforcement start planting evidence.
Maybe, but does the article name any of these offending coffee shops that are supposedly banning e-readers? I can't find it. Why name *$ clearly but not name any of these shops that are supposedly banning e-readers? Starbucks was named three times in the article, twice in what looks like a veiled ad at the end of the article.
Also, the models of several ereaders are mentioned too. The generic term "e-reader" was used twice, but six times, specific brands of ereaders were named, Kindle three times, iPad twice and nook once. iPod music player was mentioned once.
It's not proof of anything, but I think it's really odd. It just has the feel of brand whoring, and looking out for a major advertiser while possibly smearing an industry of smaller players which might have a subtle impact on which establishment a reader might enter.
Surely they know what "penny wise, pound foolish" means? If that's not a phrase with British origins, they must have one like it. I wonder what it really costs to host the sites in question.
Oh snap! That might do the trick.
But I don't think that is going to happen.
I agree the simplification is necessary for education. While Newtonian physics doesn't tell the whole story of physics, it's still useful for most human endeavors. In the grander scheme of the universe, it's wrong, but I've always understood it to be a useful simplification that the error is insignificant for most human needs on earth. For example, when doing mechanical engineering, I've never needed to perform relativistic portion of the calculations because the relativistic factor is far too small to be worth doing that math. In the other direction, for electrical engineering, I really don't need to keep quantum physics in mind all the time, I just needed the approximate equation that described the part's behavior.
I think there's a good chance that he's completely aware of that, but his target audience doesn't. There is plenty of money to be made by playing to specific sets of beliefs.
The Panda board looks very interesting, but keep in mind that's the bare board vs. a finished product with a sleek case and power supply for the same price, and a case can be a serious expense with low volume products like these. It doesn't look like there is a case available for Panda, first or third party, and that might be a consideration, depending on what you plan to do with it. Sometimes mounting it in a generic project box works, but sometimes it's not acceptable on the fit and finish.
I get that impression too.
Walter Murch is a well-respected film editor, and Roger Ebert is a well-respected movie reviewer, but they are also many decades older than the movie industry's typical target audience. Ebert was also very against digital projection a decade ago, but despite that, it's commonplace and is much better than it was a decade ago, most of the costs probably went down and the kinks have been mostly ironed out. I can't help but think there's a chance the same will happen with stereoscopic (3D) movies.
This weird form of popularism has become a way of attacking anyone with expertise. Elites are bad. People with specific knowledge are bad.
There is a grain of truth to it. Experts are often little better than anyone else outside the field of their expertise. But that doesn't mean that we should run to the imbecile, you make sure the expert is well-suited to the problem at hand. Another problem is that people often can't tell a real expert from an impostor. Voting for lawyers to political office makes sense in that way, but in writing law, they are easily in a position to help their own profession.
I think the problem is uneven deregulation. For example, uneven deregulation caused the S&L debacle, allowing S&Ls to pull all sorts of garbage and still be FDIC insured.
In short, in this case, the right of way is still too tightly regulated to allow for competition, only one cable company is allowed to lay cable wire for example.
There has to be some middle ground though. I resent the fact that only one of a particular kind of cable can be run, what that does is guarantee a monopoly over the specific type of services that use that kind of cable. Even a choice two DSL providers is better than just one.
A phone book just has a phone number and an address. Facebook has far more information on far more people than found in any given phone book. To add to this, children and teens normally aren't in a phone book but are in Facebook. For FB to give devs access to this all in a very tidy bundle with hardly any work is pretty scary. You just need to make a trojan and anyone that accepts it not only compromises their own information, also gives away information of everyone they're "friends" with.
Manufacturers of physical goods set a wholesale price and a recommended list price, or suggested list price. Some manufacturers use contracts to set a minimum advertised price (not that uncommon, you can sell for less, but can't advertise below the MAP outside the store), a few manufacturers don't allow any discounts at all.
It sounds like Amazon is taking the WalMart model even farther and setting the price they want to pay the developer too.
[quote]Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.[/quote]
That's the key problem. I really don't have faith that the currently available methods of determining trustworthiness are reliable.
The mosquito illustration was probably throwing people off. I usually try to avoid such illustrations because you're going to get people that take it too far or argue about unimportant points, because the comparison is going to fail if it is taken to far, and it becomes a distraction.
I don't think it's anarchist to suggest reform, that would be a silly accusation to worry about.
Copyright law is very excessive right now, especially when you have a broadly interpreted meaning of "limited", which is functionally "forever" when it is often extended by 20 years every 20 years. They might not be able to extend it to 1000 years because that might actually be obvious to the judicial branch as a stretch on the interpretation of limited, several smaller steps might not cause any problems.
We have different ideas of necessity. Wanting to put killer criminals in jail time vs. execution is fine if you can apprehend them. The apprehension is a very key difference here. If you can't apprehend them, and the people that you don't want to kill are out there, still with weapons, still killing other people, then what? These criminals clearly don't have the scruples that you do, and these scruples can end in even more unnecessary deaths, this kind of criminal is probably more likely to be willing to kill many people rather than allow themselves to be captured.
Given that most people in Saudi Arabia aren't citizens because of extensive use of foreign labor, and the per-capita income of regular citizens is pretty low, I wonder if the citizens are really sympathetic to their king.
Not only that, does psychological profiling even work reliably? How reliable is it? It just strikes me as one of those HR fads that large organizations rush implement before it's really tested.
Isn't there something better than email? It's a pretty clumsy system and it's been poisoned with so much spam that it has to be too much of a hassle for people. I'm not sure there are any good clients for email either.
A "persona CMS" isn't really a solution yet, I'm surprised it was suggested.
I would bet very few of the people capable of setting up their "personal CMS" really care to spend time on it to build up the features they want, keep up with all the security patches for the CMS, various plug-ins and the underlying server. Even supposing it was a solution, then you have a matter of different friends and relatives having different CMSs and no simple means of accessing it at one site with one login. Such a system would make finding relatives a bit hard. Hopefully Diaspora solves all this, but until that's truly ready, I just don't see how a personal CMS can really take the place of anything that looks remotely like a social network.
[quote]Web 2.0 is when the corporations took over.[/quote]
I'm not convinced that this is necessarily causal, it is probably a coincidence. Most corporate web sites aren't what I think of as Web 2.0. There were plenty of corporations running the show with "Web 1.0", you couldn't get on the web without using products and services provided by corporations then either. Web 1.0 was also the era of Geocities, Tripod and the like, which wasn't a good thing either.
That's sometimes true, the trouble is that I'm finding software is often less reliable and slower than the same kind of software a decade ago. More maintainable code should mean that the product is more reliable. I don't see where security necessarily yields terribly slower software and much larger file sizes, unless you mean constant malware scanning. Software available today isn't necessarily more usable to novices or the experienced, so the suggestion of a better interface doesn't necessarily hold true.
I agree. Unfortunately, LCD TVs with LED back lighting appear to be widely marketed as LED TVs in ads, sales flyers and on the packaging. I really haven't been paying close attention to whether it's true with computer screens too.
If only ignorance is criminal too.
Maybe at one time, iTunes was the only way to get Quicktime, but if that's true, that was years ago.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
I think you'd find some people saying QuickTime is criminal too, but I think that's a different discussion.