I'm certainly not disputing the legitimacy of science, but in this current age of misinformation, people need to realize that science is a discipline in constant flux. Nature and the Universe tend to stay constant, following their own laws--it's Man's perceptions and understanding that are continually changing. As we learn more and more, we tune our theories, hypotheses, and laws to better understand nature's hidden mysteries.
That the observation of a sub-atomic particle appears to confound or violate established scientific law really only means that it science has yet another mystery of nature that it does not yet fully understand. Maybe the methodology is flawed. Maybe the law is flawed. But that it happens at all should certainly not surprise any scientist--it should motivate to gain a better understanding.
I'm a streaming-only customer with no intention of subscribing to Netflix's DVD service. My prices have not changed, yet because of the small percentage of whining customers who will need to incur a $6 per month price hike, I get screwed because investors now see all this whining and media hype as a major problem. But it's the wrong problem that the media and all these whining customers have been focusing on.
Prices go up, and as DVD subscribers goes down, costs to manage the remaining DVD subscribers will go up. Postal rates will go up. Studios charge more for DVDs. It's how things work. But that's NOT the problem.
The real problem is that Netflix used to have a great deal going, then the studios finally realized that they should get their cut, and they aren't happy with a small cut. So they in turn screw Netflix by either hiking their rates, or not renewing contracts because they can go elsewhere. Meanwhile, the media and "oh so pained" customers get the attention, but this real issue gets brushed aside.
I'm 45, and while the likes of the Internet and mass-media obviously provide significantly more information than we ever had in the past, I just don't remember so many people having food allergies, aversions, ADD, "sensitivities", or other maladies that are so abundant today. Is it because we are less ignorant and more informed of what were otherwise "hidden" issues, or have we physically evolved into people weaker constitutions?
Palm provided a hardware and software platform in its PDAs that defined the industry. They were the leaders early on, edging out Apple, Casio, and many others, and they maintained that lead for a very long time. Then they dropped the ball. They stopped innovating, and they failed at multiple attempts to define themselves, all the while other companies came in and took over the market that they had locked in. PalmOS ultimately evolved into WebOS, built up a devoted niche market, and now this.
I am a long-time PalmOS PDA user. I purchased the US Robotics Pilot 1000 the week after it was released, and I've owned many models since then (the Palm Vx being my favorite.) When the iPod Touch came out, I was intrigued, not so much for its capabilities (it actually had far fewer capabilities than PalmOS PDAs) but more because I say Apple rising in popularity due to the iPhone, and the developer and user following was propelling it forward very fast and hard. The iPod Touch 4G blows the doors off any PalmOS PDA I had, and frankly, I haven't looked back.
And yet, I always wonder what would have happened if Palm had taken a step back, re-assessed what it was doing, and charged ahead with innovation.
Google states that they don't allow pseudonyms. I'd argue that in doing so, they are giving me an expectation of an assurance that the person with whom I want to communicate is who he says he is. When I get a request from "John Jones in Norfolk, Virginia", I expect that it really is John Jones from Norfolk, Virginia. Likewise, if I get a request from "FancyPants8 in some town", I have no such expectation.
So here's how to fix it to please both camps: Google allows pseudonyms, but they add a prominently visible field to show if the user is "validated" or not. If the field shows "validated" (presumably after some Google-provided, yet-to-be-determined validation process) then it means that I can be reasonably sure that the person is who he claims to be. If the field isn't "validated" or is "anonymous", then I know that the person has either not yet validated, or he has no intention to. In either case, it would give me the ability to better filter who and who I do not associate with.
What I don't understand is why there is the constant expectation that every service offered MUST provide for everyone.
If a social network doesn't permit fake names, and you want to use a fake name, then go elsewhere. If there is no elsewhere, then isn't this a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create an anonymous social network?
Unless your desktop PC has at LEAST a Duo Core 2.8GHz processor, it's worth zero in this program.
Now, for those items that are valued at zero, you are referred to www.werecycle.com where they will give you a pre-paid mailing label. And yes, it's nice to get a pre-paid label to get it off your hands, but don't expect that old beige hardware to generate any cash.
You know that it's Google. You know that it's linked to your Gmail/Google account. You know that you are required to use real information. So what's the big deal?
Why is it that we expect every service to be everything to everybody? If Google wants to attempt to create the best non-anonymous social network, so be it. Why not let them? In the mean time, maybe this is a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create a better anonymous social network site.
With Google's acquisition of sageTV, it was speculated that SageTV would either become or become part of a revised platform for GoogleTV. What will happen to this fine company? Their DVR software was fantastic, and their "media extender" hardware was very useful. Many companies that get assimilated by Google become integral parts of a greater whole. But what will happen here? I seriously doubt that Google will shelve the set-top box concept. They may transform GoogleTV into something different, but I doubt they'll abandon it.
Which kind of wireless, and what are you trying to do?
If you are trying to surf the Web or do Internet-based tasks, then you obviously need wireless, either Wi-Fi or 3G. If neither is available, then you obviously cannot do those tasks. Of course, if there is no wireless connectivity you cannot do those tasks on a laptop, tablet, netbook, or cell phone either.
If you have no wireless Internet connectivity, then you are admittedly limited by your options, unlike a laptop, netbook, or tablet, but you do have options. For example, you can listen to locally-stored MP3 files, edit locally-stored text files, or view locally-stored PDF files, etc.
Yes, you are quite limited in comparison, but it definitely is not a doorstop.
As an owner and user of Google's CR-48, I have to say that I am very unimpressed by the prices of these new Chromebooks. The Chromebook concept is solid--I've used my CR-48 in many scenarios, and I find it to be exceptionally useful. The instant-on feature and its overall light weight makes it a dream to use and tote around.
That said, they dropped the ball on pricing.
Had Google priced it in the $199-$299 range, I'd definitely consider one.
Had Google included reasonable free 3G access (say 1 or 2GB per month instead of the 100MB per month) for the $500 price tag, I'd definitely consider one.
At $500, I'd just as soon purchase a "real" laptop.
No, Gmail did NOT get a pass. It was one of their biggest criticisms. Then people actually took the time to understand what Gmail was doing, and realized that EVERY email system that does virus scans "scans" every message. Gmail was just additionally using to target ads. Some didn't (and don't) like it and used another service.
Slashdot Mirror
Do Westboro's actions in any way diminish the innovation that Steve Jobs contributed to the technology industry?
Any answer other than "No!" should be considered very naive.
Let Westboro have their day of protest--which will be very short-lived. Conversely, Steve Job's legacy will live on far longer than theirs ever will.
Besides, it is their Constitutional right to protest, just as it is mine to disagree with them.
I'm certainly not disputing the legitimacy of science, but in this current age of misinformation, people need to realize that science is a discipline in constant flux. Nature and the Universe tend to stay constant, following their own laws--it's Man's perceptions and understanding that are continually changing. As we learn more and more, we tune our theories, hypotheses, and laws to better understand nature's hidden mysteries.
That the observation of a sub-atomic particle appears to confound or violate established scientific law really only means that it science has yet another mystery of nature that it does not yet fully understand. Maybe the methodology is flawed. Maybe the law is flawed. But that it happens at all should certainly not surprise any scientist--it should motivate to gain a better understanding.
If you buy one of everything (wifi models only) that Amazon announced today, it is cheaper than the low end iPad.
I'd rather drink human breast milk. At least the source is more appealing.
I'm a streaming-only customer with no intention of subscribing to Netflix's DVD service. My prices have not changed, yet because of the small percentage of whining customers who will need to incur a $6 per month price hike, I get screwed because investors now see all this whining and media hype as a major problem. But it's the wrong problem that the media and all these whining customers have been focusing on.
Prices go up, and as DVD subscribers goes down, costs to manage the remaining DVD subscribers will go up. Postal rates will go up. Studios charge more for DVDs. It's how things work. But that's NOT the problem.
The real problem is that Netflix used to have a great deal going, then the studios finally realized that they should get their cut, and they aren't happy with a small cut. So they in turn screw Netflix by either hiking their rates, or not renewing contracts because they can go elsewhere. Meanwhile, the media and "oh so pained" customers get the attention, but this real issue gets brushed aside.
The Metro style UI is definitely optimized for a mouse and for touch screens. Does anyone know how to navigate the Metro Start page using a keyboard?
Intuitively, I figured that you could just use the arrow keys to move around, but they do nothing.
I'm 45, and while the likes of the Internet and mass-media obviously provide significantly more information than we ever had in the past, I just don't remember so many people having food allergies, aversions, ADD, "sensitivities", or other maladies that are so abundant today. Is it because we are less ignorant and more informed of what were otherwise "hidden" issues, or have we physically evolved into people weaker constitutions?
...there's no references to the speech on the new memorial in Washington, DC.
That sounds about right. And it's about 2.4 million more than mine!
I've been wondering where all the "4-digits" have been hanging out!
Palm provided a hardware and software platform in its PDAs that defined the industry. They were the leaders early on, edging out Apple, Casio, and many others, and they maintained that lead for a very long time. Then they dropped the ball. They stopped innovating, and they failed at multiple attempts to define themselves, all the while other companies came in and took over the market that they had locked in. PalmOS ultimately evolved into WebOS, built up a devoted niche market, and now this.
I am a long-time PalmOS PDA user. I purchased the US Robotics Pilot 1000 the week after it was released, and I've owned many models since then (the Palm Vx being my favorite.) When the iPod Touch came out, I was intrigued, not so much for its capabilities (it actually had far fewer capabilities than PalmOS PDAs) but more because I say Apple rising in popularity due to the iPhone, and the developer and user following was propelling it forward very fast and hard. The iPod Touch 4G blows the doors off any PalmOS PDA I had, and frankly, I haven't looked back.
And yet, I always wonder what would have happened if Palm had taken a step back, re-assessed what it was doing, and charged ahead with innovation.
That we're relying on Twitter to get the status of our defense department projects.
Google states that they don't allow pseudonyms. I'd argue that in doing so, they are giving me an expectation of an assurance that the person with whom I want to communicate is who he says he is. When I get a request from "John Jones in Norfolk, Virginia", I expect that it really is John Jones from Norfolk, Virginia. Likewise, if I get a request from "FancyPants8 in some town", I have no such expectation.
So here's how to fix it to please both camps: Google allows pseudonyms, but they add a prominently visible field to show if the user is "validated" or not. If the field shows "validated" (presumably after some Google-provided, yet-to-be-determined validation process) then it means that I can be reasonably sure that the person is who he claims to be. If the field isn't "validated" or is "anonymous", then I know that the person has either not yet validated, or he has no intention to. In either case, it would give me the ability to better filter who and who I do not associate with.
What I don't understand is why there is the constant expectation that every service offered MUST provide for everyone.
If a social network doesn't permit fake names, and you want to use a fake name, then go elsewhere. If there is no elsewhere, then isn't this a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create an anonymous social network?
Unless your desktop PC has at LEAST a Duo Core 2.8GHz processor, it's worth zero in this program.
Now, for those items that are valued at zero, you are referred to www.werecycle.com where they will give you a pre-paid mailing label. And yes, it's nice to get a pre-paid label to get it off your hands, but don't expect that old beige hardware to generate any cash.
They also won't take any iPod Touch devices.
The parent article might have given him a Rush.
And I was sick for about a month. Not my idea of fun.
You know that it's Google. You know that it's linked to your Gmail/Google account. You know that you are required to use real information. So what's the big deal?
Why is it that we expect every service to be everything to everybody? If Google wants to attempt to create the best non-anonymous social network, so be it. Why not let them? In the mean time, maybe this is a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create a better anonymous social network site.
With Google's acquisition of sageTV, it was speculated that SageTV would either become or become part of a revised platform for GoogleTV. What will happen to this fine company? Their DVR software was fantastic, and their "media extender" hardware was very useful. Many companies that get assimilated by Google become integral parts of a greater whole. But what will happen here? I seriously doubt that Google will shelve the set-top box concept. They may transform GoogleTV into something different, but I doubt they'll abandon it.
They just don't like the new name that it would become: AT&T&T
Which kind of wireless, and what are you trying to do?
If you are trying to surf the Web or do Internet-based tasks, then you obviously need wireless, either Wi-Fi or 3G. If neither is available, then you obviously cannot do those tasks. Of course, if there is no wireless connectivity you cannot do those tasks on a laptop, tablet, netbook, or cell phone either.
If you have no wireless Internet connectivity, then you are admittedly limited by your options, unlike a laptop, netbook, or tablet, but you do have options. For example, you can listen to locally-stored MP3 files, edit locally-stored text files, or view locally-stored PDF files, etc.
Yes, you are quite limited in comparison, but it definitely is not a doorstop.
As an owner and user of Google's CR-48, I have to say that I am very unimpressed by the prices of these new Chromebooks. The Chromebook concept is solid--I've used my CR-48 in many scenarios, and I find it to be exceptionally useful. The instant-on feature and its overall light weight makes it a dream to use and tote around.
That said, they dropped the ball on pricing.
Had Google priced it in the $199-$299 range, I'd definitely consider one.
Had Google included reasonable free 3G access (say 1 or 2GB per month instead of the 100MB per month) for the $500 price tag, I'd definitely consider one.
At $500, I'd just as soon purchase a "real" laptop.
No, Gmail did NOT get a pass. It was one of their biggest criticisms. Then people actually took the time to understand what Gmail was doing, and realized that EVERY email system that does virus scans "scans" every message. Gmail was just additionally using to target ads. Some didn't (and don't) like it and used another service.
Tivo uses Linux as its OS. It's obviously not a Desktop alternative, but it is an excellent example of how Linux is used in many devices.
She just might get props from her instructor for being innovative.
...with mod up or down.