If you invest dollars in a bank in Africa, you're going out of your way to stay out of the system. By comparison, MtGox was a mainstream Bitcoin institution, and was even recommended (LONG AFTER THE THING COLLAPSED) by outfits like Blockchain.info.
Not a reasonable comparison. By every measure MtGox was a central pillar of the Bitcoin system and establishment. A bank that's obviously and intentionally outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve? No.
Karpalas bought a company called MtGox from an early Bitcoin pioneer, who'd originally intended to start a Magic: The Gathering exchange product, and registered the name Mt Gox with the intention of doing this. Said person then decided to go into Bitcoins instead, long before Karpalas entered the scene.
A little improbable (if we're talking "download hours" rather than "eyeball hours" - the former is relevant to a discussion of bandwidth use, the latter is relevant to a discussion of whether Firefly should have been canceled) given that in most cases four people living in the same house are going to be part of the family, and therefore likely to be watching the same television at the same time.
If we're so put upon, then why is it that 90+% of the developers I've worked with, spanning some 20 years, are male?
The affirmative action programs you guys complain about are attempts to level the playing field.
Analogy time. Suppose you have some scales. On one side is something covered with a tissue. You can't see what it is, but it's obviously heavy because that side of the scale is touching the floor.
On the other side people keep adding weights, with only slight movements in the scales, the scales are still leaning the original way.
It's obvious in this case that the people adding weights are just trying to balance the scale. But you and the other MRAs ignore the state of the scale and instead focus on the adding of weights, insisting that anyone adding weights to one side must be making it lean the other way, and that is already is, and so on.
Men continue to be heavily represented in IT. In Google, which is sponsoring this event, women have only marginal representation within the company.
And our rights aren't being threatened. We still have what we have. Nobody's picking up the tissue, removing anything, and putting it back. Instead, they're just adding more weights to the other tray.
Well, it is not unarguable that being a white male subjects you to a whole lot of stereotyping, including yours by the way. I know white males who are poor and not exerting their dominance over the rest of humanity, and are remarkably unlucky. There are also areas of the world in which the white male isn't lucky at all. Perahps a non western world-centric update is indicated.
One of the things I hate about Slashdot is that whenever you state a generalization, and make it clear it's a generalization (therefore, it's implied that there'll be a large range of deviation) someone always insists you're talking in absolutes about every single person that qualifies as part of a group.
It'd be nice if you could address the point about in-built advantages, rather than pointing out that there are a few poor white men in the world (woah! You don't say! I had no idea! Next you'll be giving me a list of powerful women, jews, blacks, gays, etc, which will take me by complete surprise because "(white males) - as a group - are (...) in an increadibly lucky position" obviously implies the non-existence of exceptions!)
I said "as a group". I stand by that. And it's not a "them", I am a white male, I've had ups and downs in my life, but I've never had to fight serious, career crippling, prejudice related to my whiteymaleness, or worse. And neither have any of the white male nerds who post here upset that some affirmative action program might encourage girls more than boys, or whatever.
Yeah, government bureaucracies can be slow. But for 27 months, right before an election, not one single "Tea Party" or "Patriots" group got approved, while dozens of liberal groups got approved. This amounts to tampering with an election
Compare like with like. Is your statement correct if it's changed to "But for 27 months, right before an election, not one single "Tea Party" or "Patriots" group got approved, while dozens of Occupy groups got approved."? No.
Is your statement correct if it's changed to "But for 27 months, right before an election, not one single conservative group got approved, while dozens of liberal groups got approved."? Again, no.
I'm not sure if you're trying to spin things, or you're repeating a talking point without thinking about it.
Not at barely 3% of the price of gasoline, no. An increase in the gas tax may slightly increase inflation, but it's not going to be high enough to impact the calculations that set its own level.
Absolutely. And my view is we should make sure whatever we build embraces promising new technologies like THE CLOUD. Imagine a future where, instead of however it is X11 works now, it can display applications running on computers that could be anywhere in the world, managed by other people, with you doing no more than connecting to that remote server and launching the user interface for whatever application it is you want to use.
I bet they never thought of concepts like that when they designed X11...
You're making an unsustainable argument, the fact a specific collection of words may have been influenced by similar but not identical words used by the victims of discrimination to describe themselves does not make those words inoffensive. Indeed, something used commonly 200 years ago can become offensive over time.
I'm pretty sure the N-word is derived from "Negro", meaning "Black", and that black people have frequently described themselves as black throughout history. The N-word is pretty most the posterchild for a term of extreme offensiveness.
If native Americans find the term "redskin" offensive, they find it offensive. It doesn't matter whether they have used terms using non-English words that mean "Red in skin color" in the past, because that's not the letter R, followed by E, followed by D, S, K, I, and finally N.
Despite the NAACP's initials, referring to someone as "colored" in the US would certainly get you some odd stares, and a likely assumption you're using it pejoratively, precisely for the reasons you suggest, so your example was fine. Likewise "negro" FWIW.
I'm somewhat amazed by the number of frequent posters to Slashdot who really don't "get it", and think that everything is some attempt to bring down white males, and that the latter - as a group - are not in an increadibly lucky position. It'd be interesting to see how many who post claims like this would actually prefer to be reborn as black, or female, or homosexual, or transgendered, or of Jewish or Middle Eastern descent, or any of the other groups they claim to believe are privileged right now due to anti-discrimination laws.
I can tell you I wouldn't switch. I seriously doubt they would either.
I thought the analogy made perfect sense FWIW, and your comments claiming it was a logical fallacy were far off the mark - which makes sense, because you were commenting on something knowing you didn't know what he meant!
What he said was basically you might feel obliged to oppose a law that doesn't affect you now because you worry you may make decisions later on that would result in the law affecting you.
You're not a parent, but you'd still actively oppose a restriction on the disposal of dirty diapers, in part because you may become a parent in future.
He added that this is how ISPs see the situation: that regulations concerning the Internet should be opposed because they may affect the ISP in the future even if they don't affect the ISP today.
This was a very reasonable description of why AT&T might oppose regulation in areas that don't directly affect them today.
There's no free speech issue here. The Redskins can call themselves whatever they want. What they can't do, necessarily, is count upon the full force of government to help them out if they want to prevent other people from using the same term in connection with their business, if they choose to use a particular category of name, as they are doing.
Not sure all of your criticisms are fair, though I agree generally it's ridiculously expensive and locks the user into bad things, like AT&T. Other items on your list that I agree are bad are issues you and I are in a minority with - SD card support, for example.
To be fair though there are some interesting UI innovations there. I'd be interested to see if other phone companies follow suit.
And I hope they weren't stupid enough to give it a glossy screen if the UI is based on creating an optimal view based upon how the phone is tilted.
I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? If there were factual errors or logical fallacies (and what are "heroic assumptions") you'd correct them, as would others.
And generally, I've been posting here long enough to know that some people do abuse mod points, and the only workaround is to repost what's been abusively modded down if you feel the moderation was undeserved. Hissy fit? How? It's a statement of fact.
The truth is every time I mention problems with Wayland, from criticizing the decision to start at "feature incomplete" for the architecture to the fact they're throwing out a perfectly good system in favor of an ideological rewrite (pretty much guaranteed to waste time and resources on producing something that will have the same results), I get modded to the floor. Not "Now hang on Squiggy, in this case this argument may be wrong for this reason", but just blatant abuse.
Wayland advocates are too thin skinned to handle criticism. And that, on top of the fact it's throwing out a working body of code, on top of the fact that they're omitting critical features from day #1, on top of the fact that the design workarounds mentioned thus far (like the effing stupid RDP H.264 bullshit) are just about the worst way of pacifying those that have said they want features the designers don't give a shit about, is why the project is destined to produce something destined to fail as an adequate X replacement.
If you can't listen to criticism, you're doomed from the start.
(Original has disappeared because of abusive moderation. FFS. The desire of Wayland fanboys to silence any opposition is beyond ridiculous.)
Probably never.
Remote Display is something that Wayland's developers do not consider important in any way shape or form whatsoever. When these projects started, anyone saying "Hold on, one of the major features of X I like is the network transparency" was summarily ridiculed by the Wayland group as an out of touch nerd who doesn't know what "real users" want or need.
And, FWIW, the GP is completely flat-out wrong given everything I've heard thus far. "Wayland Remote display" will be, according to what I've read so far, if ever implemented based on H.264 (or something similar), essentially a slightly more efficient version of VNC (which had an MPEG-1 mode) running in a per-window mode. Because nothing says "better" than something that sucks up CPU on both sides of the network, introduces a GoP of latency, and requires megabytes of throughput every second to show a full screen word processor.
Thanks Shuttleworth. Yes, you. Yes, I know you're proposing Mir. But if you hadn't said Ubuntu was switching to Mir at some point in the future, the debate would still be "kludgy but proven X.org vs untried, poorly thought out new system", not "untried poorly thought out new system vs another".
Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way?
on
Wayland 1.5 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Probably never.
Remote Display is something that Wayland's developers do not consider important in any way shape or form whatsoever. When these projects started, anyone saying "Hold on, one of the major features of X I like is the network transparency" was summarily ridiculed by the Wayland group as an out of touch nerd who doesn't know what "real users" want or need.
And, FWIW, the GP is completely flat-out wrong given everything I've heard thus far. "Wayland Remote display" will be, according to what I've read so far, if ever implemented based on H.264 (or something similar), essentially a slightly more efficient version of VNC (which had an MPEG-1 mode) running in a per-window mode. Because nothing says "better" than something that sucks up CPU on both sides of the network, introduces a GoP of latency, and requires megabytes of throughput every second to show a full screen word processor.
Thanks Shuttleworth. Yes, you. Yes, I know you're proposing Mir. But if you hadn't said Ubuntu was switching to Mir at some point in the future, the debate would still be "kludgy but proven X.org vs untried, poorly thought out new system", not "untried poorly thought out new system vs another".
Flash works on every browser that implements the Netscape plug-in protocol for any of the supported platforms (Win32, OS X ix86, GNU/Linux ix86, and a handful of others)
EME, on the other hand, requires a different binary for every single Browser/Platform implementation. There's not going to be a Hulu EME binary for "Win32", you'll need one instead for Win32+Firefox, or Win32+IE, or Win32+Opera, etc.
EME is absolutely horrible. It makes little sense, it's certainly worse than the status quo, and I'm baffled as to why it was ever proposed as a "standard" - it's unquestionably the dumbest HTML "standard" since the OBJECT tag.
But they're not really are they? Because if they were, those users of Word would be tearing their hair out about how to change fonts and insert page breaks.
In all honesty, I think part of the problem is developer boredom. I don't mean the boredom of a single programmer, I mean the entire development infrastructure. They've produced some mostly excellent software in the form of Word-as-it-was-two-decades-ago etc, and since then have realized they have to add features to justify people buying the latest version, and have searched for things to add without much success.
So they don't, and when they do kinda find something it's not that they think the majority of users will benefit, more a "This is a neat trick, it solves something we've seen a lot of people do" (eg "I get a lot of letters from my Mom where she never touches the shift key and they're hard to read", etc), and they spend months implementing it, re-implementing, moving the code around, tweaking the way it works, etc, because they have nothing else to work on. And nobody interferes with this process because nobody knows what should be worked on instead.
BTW the fact the application does this is a PITA by itself. What makes it worse though is that it's rare that a feature like "I'm going to ignore where you started selecting from and suddenly change your selection to an entire word", etc, is actually possible to turn off. It certainly never appears in any obvious dialog, and on the rare occasion it is possible to turn it off, you normally assume it isn't anyway.
It makes little or no difference. The energy hog on a smartphone is the screen. Virtually everything else pales in comparison. The only time it becomes an issue is if some app is continuously running, which happens with Android occasionally, but then it's not going to matter if it's Javascript or raw handcrafted ARM assember.
Because your finger is too fat. No, I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing out there's a difference between a UI designed for a relatively "accurate" mouse pointer (also with buttons), and one that involves a half inch oval of flesh-covered-bone pushing on glass.
Also, you know, size. As in either the font is going to be tiny, or the fact that the UI is designed for the full height of a 14" (if you're lucky) screen is going to mean you can't see most of any dialog boxes that come up on your 4" touchphone.
What I would like, and regret not seeing ever make the light of day, is that Ubuntu for Android thing. There you can compile your desktop app to run on your phone - it's just to use it, you need to plug a mouse, keyboard, and screen in, so that you have, y'know, a desktop.
Well, this is Slashdot, so I believe the definition you are looking for is "The right to make the CHOICE to copy something despite the attempts of the copyright cartels to prevent us from sharing what we paid for already and calling it stealiing which it totally is not because (continued page 94...)"
I think Microsoft has done some great things, it's just by the time they get to market there are problems.
Windows 8 has a superb tablet UI. If it had been left at that, with the tablet UI version of the OS shipped on tablets, and an unbroken desktop version shipped for desktops; or a core MVC API been implemented making it easy for developers to target both desktops and tablets acknowledging the completely different UIs and expected workflows then they did, we'd all be using it and Apple would be back in decline. Unfortunately...
I feel like they're a much more inventive, innovative, company than they were 15 years ago. It's just they have some awful upper management that tends to cripple projects before they see the sunlight.
Slashdot Mirror
If you invest dollars in a bank in Africa, you're going out of your way to stay out of the system. By comparison, MtGox was a mainstream Bitcoin institution, and was even recommended (LONG AFTER THE THING COLLAPSED) by outfits like Blockchain.info.
Not a reasonable comparison. By every measure MtGox was a central pillar of the Bitcoin system and establishment. A bank that's obviously and intentionally outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve? No.
No, he didn't.
Karpalas bought a company called MtGox from an early Bitcoin pioneer, who'd originally intended to start a Magic: The Gathering exchange product, and registered the name Mt Gox with the intention of doing this. Said person then decided to go into Bitcoins instead, long before Karpalas entered the scene.
Let me guess. Larry Ellison got an SMS a few days ago saying
and he thought the message was truncated?
A little improbable (if we're talking "download hours" rather than "eyeball hours" - the former is relevant to a discussion of bandwidth use, the latter is relevant to a discussion of whether Firefly should have been canceled) given that in most cases four people living in the same house are going to be part of the family, and therefore likely to be watching the same television at the same time.
If we're so put upon, then why is it that 90+% of the developers I've worked with, spanning some 20 years, are male?
The affirmative action programs you guys complain about are attempts to level the playing field.
Analogy time. Suppose you have some scales. On one side is something covered with a tissue. You can't see what it is, but it's obviously heavy because that side of the scale is touching the floor.
On the other side people keep adding weights, with only slight movements in the scales, the scales are still leaning the original way.
It's obvious in this case that the people adding weights are just trying to balance the scale. But you and the other MRAs ignore the state of the scale and instead focus on the adding of weights, insisting that anyone adding weights to one side must be making it lean the other way, and that is already is, and so on.
Men continue to be heavily represented in IT. In Google, which is sponsoring this event, women have only marginal representation within the company.
And our rights aren't being threatened. We still have what we have. Nobody's picking up the tissue, removing anything, and putting it back. Instead, they're just adding more weights to the other tray.
One of the things I hate about Slashdot is that whenever you state a generalization, and make it clear it's a generalization (therefore, it's implied that there'll be a large range of deviation) someone always insists you're talking in absolutes about every single person that qualifies as part of a group.
It'd be nice if you could address the point about in-built advantages, rather than pointing out that there are a few poor white men in the world (woah! You don't say! I had no idea! Next you'll be giving me a list of powerful women, jews, blacks, gays, etc, which will take me by complete surprise because "(white males) - as a group - are (...) in an increadibly lucky position" obviously implies the non-existence of exceptions!)
I said "as a group". I stand by that. And it's not a "them", I am a white male, I've had ups and downs in my life, but I've never had to fight serious, career crippling, prejudice related to my whiteymaleness, or worse. And neither have any of the white male nerds who post here upset that some affirmative action program might encourage girls more than boys, or whatever.
Compare like with like. Is your statement correct if it's changed to "But for 27 months, right before an election, not one single "Tea Party" or "Patriots" group got approved, while dozens of Occupy groups got approved."? No.
Is your statement correct if it's changed to "But for 27 months, right before an election, not one single conservative group got approved, while dozens of liberal groups got approved."? Again, no.
I'm not sure if you're trying to spin things, or you're repeating a talking point without thinking about it.
Not at barely 3% of the price of gasoline, no. An increase in the gas tax may slightly increase inflation, but it's not going to be high enough to impact the calculations that set its own level.
Absolutely. And my view is we should make sure whatever we build embraces promising new technologies like THE CLOUD. Imagine a future where, instead of however it is X11 works now, it can display applications running on computers that could be anywhere in the world, managed by other people, with you doing no more than connecting to that remote server and launching the user interface for whatever application it is you want to use.
I bet they never thought of concepts like that when they designed X11...
You're making an unsustainable argument, the fact a specific collection of words may have been influenced by similar but not identical words used by the victims of discrimination to describe themselves does not make those words inoffensive. Indeed, something used commonly 200 years ago can become offensive over time.
I'm pretty sure the N-word is derived from "Negro", meaning "Black", and that black people have frequently described themselves as black throughout history. The N-word is pretty most the posterchild for a term of extreme offensiveness.
If native Americans find the term "redskin" offensive, they find it offensive. It doesn't matter whether they have used terms using non-English words that mean "Red in skin color" in the past, because that's not the letter R, followed by E, followed by D, S, K, I, and finally N.
Despite the NAACP's initials, referring to someone as "colored" in the US would certainly get you some odd stares, and a likely assumption you're using it pejoratively, precisely for the reasons you suggest, so your example was fine. Likewise "negro" FWIW.
I'm somewhat amazed by the number of frequent posters to Slashdot who really don't "get it", and think that everything is some attempt to bring down white males, and that the latter - as a group - are not in an increadibly lucky position. It'd be interesting to see how many who post claims like this would actually prefer to be reborn as black, or female, or homosexual, or transgendered, or of Jewish or Middle Eastern descent, or any of the other groups they claim to believe are privileged right now due to anti-discrimination laws.
I can tell you I wouldn't switch. I seriously doubt they would either.
Stop spouting facts, they have no place in this lynching! Next you'll be pointing out that the IRS targeted OWS groups too...
I thought the analogy made perfect sense FWIW, and your comments claiming it was a logical fallacy were far off the mark - which makes sense, because you were commenting on something knowing you didn't know what he meant!
What he said was basically you might feel obliged to oppose a law that doesn't affect you now because you worry you may make decisions later on that would result in the law affecting you.
You're not a parent, but you'd still actively oppose a restriction on the disposal of dirty diapers, in part because you may become a parent in future.
He added that this is how ISPs see the situation: that regulations concerning the Internet should be opposed because they may affect the ISP in the future even if they don't affect the ISP today.
This was a very reasonable description of why AT&T might oppose regulation in areas that don't directly affect them today.
There's no free speech issue here. The Redskins can call themselves whatever they want. What they can't do, necessarily, is count upon the full force of government to help them out if they want to prevent other people from using the same term in connection with their business, if they choose to use a particular category of name, as they are doing.
It's just a Trademark. That's all.
Not sure all of your criticisms are fair, though I agree generally it's ridiculously expensive and locks the user into bad things, like AT&T. Other items on your list that I agree are bad are issues you and I are in a minority with - SD card support, for example.
To be fair though there are some interesting UI innovations there. I'd be interested to see if other phone companies follow suit.
And I hope they weren't stupid enough to give it a glossy screen if the UI is based on creating an optimal view based upon how the phone is tilted.
I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? If there were factual errors or logical fallacies (and what are "heroic assumptions") you'd correct them, as would others.
And generally, I've been posting here long enough to know that some people do abuse mod points, and the only workaround is to repost what's been abusively modded down if you feel the moderation was undeserved. Hissy fit? How? It's a statement of fact.
The truth is every time I mention problems with Wayland, from criticizing the decision to start at "feature incomplete" for the architecture to the fact they're throwing out a perfectly good system in favor of an ideological rewrite (pretty much guaranteed to waste time and resources on producing something that will have the same results), I get modded to the floor. Not "Now hang on Squiggy, in this case this argument may be wrong for this reason", but just blatant abuse.
Wayland advocates are too thin skinned to handle criticism. And that, on top of the fact it's throwing out a working body of code, on top of the fact that they're omitting critical features from day #1, on top of the fact that the design workarounds mentioned thus far (like the effing stupid RDP H.264 bullshit) are just about the worst way of pacifying those that have said they want features the designers don't give a shit about, is why the project is destined to produce something destined to fail as an adequate X replacement.
If you can't listen to criticism, you're doomed from the start.
(Original has disappeared because of abusive moderation. FFS. The desire of Wayland fanboys to silence any opposition is beyond ridiculous.)
Probably never.
Remote Display is something that Wayland's developers do not consider important in any way shape or form whatsoever. When these projects started, anyone saying "Hold on, one of the major features of X I like is the network transparency" was summarily ridiculed by the Wayland group as an out of touch nerd who doesn't know what "real users" want or need.
And, FWIW, the GP is completely flat-out wrong given everything I've heard thus far. "Wayland Remote display" will be, according to what I've read so far, if ever implemented based on H.264 (or something similar), essentially a slightly more efficient version of VNC (which had an MPEG-1 mode) running in a per-window mode. Because nothing says "better" than something that sucks up CPU on both sides of the network, introduces a GoP of latency, and requires megabytes of throughput every second to show a full screen word processor.
Thanks Shuttleworth. Yes, you. Yes, I know you're proposing Mir. But if you hadn't said Ubuntu was switching to Mir at some point in the future, the debate would still be "kludgy but proven X.org vs untried, poorly thought out new system", not "untried poorly thought out new system vs another".
Probably never.
Remote Display is something that Wayland's developers do not consider important in any way shape or form whatsoever. When these projects started, anyone saying "Hold on, one of the major features of X I like is the network transparency" was summarily ridiculed by the Wayland group as an out of touch nerd who doesn't know what "real users" want or need.
And, FWIW, the GP is completely flat-out wrong given everything I've heard thus far. "Wayland Remote display" will be, according to what I've read so far, if ever implemented based on H.264 (or something similar), essentially a slightly more efficient version of VNC (which had an MPEG-1 mode) running in a per-window mode. Because nothing says "better" than something that sucks up CPU on both sides of the network, introduces a GoP of latency, and requires megabytes of throughput every second to show a full screen word processor.
Thanks Shuttleworth. Yes, you. Yes, I know you're proposing Mir. But if you hadn't said Ubuntu was switching to Mir at some point in the future, the debate would still be "kludgy but proven X.org vs untried, poorly thought out new system", not "untried poorly thought out new system vs another".
Flash is a vast improvement on EME.
Flash works on every browser that implements the Netscape plug-in protocol for any of the supported platforms (Win32, OS X ix86, GNU/Linux ix86, and a handful of others)
EME, on the other hand, requires a different binary for every single Browser/Platform implementation. There's not going to be a Hulu EME binary for "Win32", you'll need one instead for Win32+Firefox, or Win32+IE, or Win32+Opera, etc.
EME is absolutely horrible. It makes little sense, it's certainly worse than the status quo, and I'm baffled as to why it was ever proposed as a "standard" - it's unquestionably the dumbest HTML "standard" since the OBJECT tag.
But they're not really are they? Because if they were, those users of Word would be tearing their hair out about how to change fonts and insert page breaks.
In all honesty, I think part of the problem is developer boredom. I don't mean the boredom of a single programmer, I mean the entire development infrastructure. They've produced some mostly excellent software in the form of Word-as-it-was-two-decades-ago etc, and since then have realized they have to add features to justify people buying the latest version, and have searched for things to add without much success.
So they don't, and when they do kinda find something it's not that they think the majority of users will benefit, more a "This is a neat trick, it solves something we've seen a lot of people do" (eg "I get a lot of letters from my Mom where she never touches the shift key and they're hard to read", etc), and they spend months implementing it, re-implementing, moving the code around, tweaking the way it works, etc, because they have nothing else to work on. And nobody interferes with this process because nobody knows what should be worked on instead.
BTW the fact the application does this is a PITA by itself. What makes it worse though is that it's rare that a feature like "I'm going to ignore where you started selecting from and suddenly change your selection to an entire word", etc, is actually possible to turn off. It certainly never appears in any obvious dialog, and on the rare occasion it is possible to turn it off, you normally assume it isn't anyway.
It makes little or no difference. The energy hog on a smartphone is the screen. Virtually everything else pales in comparison. The only time it becomes an issue is if some app is continuously running, which happens with Android occasionally, but then it's not going to matter if it's Javascript or raw handcrafted ARM assember.
Because your finger is too fat. No, I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing out there's a difference between a UI designed for a relatively "accurate" mouse pointer (also with buttons), and one that involves a half inch oval of flesh-covered-bone pushing on glass.
Also, you know, size. As in either the font is going to be tiny, or the fact that the UI is designed for the full height of a 14" (if you're lucky) screen is going to mean you can't see most of any dialog boxes that come up on your 4" touchphone.
What I would like, and regret not seeing ever make the light of day, is that Ubuntu for Android thing. There you can compile your desktop app to run on your phone - it's just to use it, you need to plug a mouse, keyboard, and screen in, so that you have, y'know, a desktop.
Well, this is Slashdot, so I believe the definition you are looking for is "The right to make the CHOICE to copy something despite the attempts of the copyright cartels to prevent us from sharing what we paid for already and calling it stealiing which it totally is not because (continued page 94...)"
And it's only six thousand years old! ;-)
I think Microsoft has done some great things, it's just by the time they get to market there are problems.
Windows 8 has a superb tablet UI. If it had been left at that, with the tablet UI version of the OS shipped on tablets, and an unbroken desktop version shipped for desktops; or a core MVC API been implemented making it easy for developers to target both desktops and tablets acknowledging the completely different UIs and expected workflows then they did, we'd all be using it and Apple would be back in decline. Unfortunately...
I feel like they're a much more inventive, innovative, company than they were 15 years ago. It's just they have some awful upper management that tends to cripple projects before they see the sunlight.