In day-to-day life videos are mainly used when somebody feels wronged. People are rarely ever as motivated to reward others for good work. I pity the poor customer service worker who could have dozens of people recording him every day, looking for evidence to bring to his manager.
In the past, greater accountability has brought greater bureaucracy and more rules. IF Google Glass is a huge hit I would expect it to make human interactions more robotic and more stressful.
If you want to shut absolutely everything out, get some high quality earmuffs (the kind they use at gun ranges) and wear earbuds (or earplugs) inside of them. Then start your playlist or get a white noise mp3 from amazon or wherever. A bomb could go off in your dorm and you probably wouldn't hear it. On the other hand you probably wouldn't be able to hear fire alarms or anything either, so use with caution...
Tapping on a screen is not the most natural way to communicate with people. You should assign your best men to this problem to invent a solution. But before you do I have a question for you. What if we used our phones to call people and talk to them?
Seriously what is with this guy? Why is this so complicated?
You can do quite a lot with SMS: Google SMS does weather, search, directions, gmail, news headlines, etc. Twitter is a good example of an app (originally) based on text messaging. It may not be pretty, but it is simple, reliable, and efficient. For those reasons it is an important lifeline, Wikipedia obviously sees it that way, and I'm glad it's not being forgotten.
It looks like if I waited much longer to buy it, I wouldn't be able to. Apparently if you stick around long enough you will live to see a respectable version of Symbian. And that makes the situation even more tragic, because just as Symbian is (almost) caught up, they decide to kill it and hitch their cart to Microsoft, the most laughable non-innovator of the last decade. Predictably, this has failed, and now my only wonder is whether this new phone will outlive Nokia, like some artifact from before its shameful marriage of desperation with Microsoft, when it still had something to be proud of.
This is such self-serving BS. Microsoft needs a single, unified OS, not you. Microsoft did what they needed to do, for themselves, and this argument was invented after the fact to make it look like it's good for the consumer. What I need is an operating system that doesn't have to reboot every month on Patch Tuesday.
Normal people don't care about the OS, the "desktop environment," the openness of the kernel or its ABI stability. They don't even know what those things mean. People don't use computers for the sake of computers, only nerds do that. People use computers because they do things like write documents or fix vacation photos. If Facebook only worked with Linux, then everyone would use Linux. Writing some killer app and only ever releasing it on Linux is the only way a programmer can get people to switch. Otherwise your best bet is a businessman like Steve Jobs to come along. Look at all the people using iOS. Do you think people are buying iPhones because OMG iOS!!! No.
I don't think NVIDIA is doing anything wrong, but I'm sick of hearing the profit motive used as a euphemism for antisocial or greedy behavior. That's not the way capitalism is supposed to work and everybody needs to know this. Any business textbook will tell you that the profit motive is not meant to be synonymous with greed, but in practice that is how most Americans think of it. I don't know how people got tricked or corrupted into this way of thinking but we're all paying the price now as fraud played a huge part in the economy's destruction.
I've had two credit card numbers stolen from me in the last two years due to companies getting hacked. But I've never been robbed in my entire life. In my experience cash is more secure.
On top of that, these electronic payment methods just add middlemen who skim money off the top and make everything more expensive. It's not good for the economy and I've stopped using credit cards for most purchases. I'm missing out on cash rewards but I just think of it like giving charity.
Sorry, this doesn't vindicate climate denial at all. He's just one scientist who made kooky predictions and if you think he's at all important then you need a remedial course in logic. As a matter of fact, climate change has been occurring shockingly fast, faster than even the worst case scenarios were predicting (source http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/06/us-climate-canada-idUSTRE6145KP20100206). Due to a complete political failure to address the issue, an 11 degF rise in temperature is expected.
The platform doesn't matter. Nobody cares about computers enough to care whether it runs Windows or Linux. All the things you find great about Linux are boring and worthless to the average person because their life does not revolve around computers.
You might be able to get people to convert if Linux had some killer applications that Windows didn't. People do actually care about what they can and cannot do with their computer. You can do far more with a Windows computer than you can do with Linux. Many powerful and important applications are not available on Linux. But this isn't likely to change, because most people who have great ideas want to make money off of them, and there's not a lot of money to be made on Linux.
I'm an "environmentalist" but the idea of high gas prices being good is crazy to me. The assumption that people will react logically to oil scarcity is so naive. People will actually just fight to hold on to their present lifestyle rather than accept change. Instead of pushing for sustainability or efficiency, what will actually happen is more support for "drill baby drill," oil wars, tar sands development, and the possibility of mass synthetic fuel production.
Smartphones usually do not outmatch the devices they are supposed to replace. Being limited to pocket size basically ensures this. In contrast, computers usually are much better at everything. With a computer, you can play mp3/tv/video; write email/docs/programs; make and receive phone calls; read Kindle books; and play anything from Solitaire to Starcraft 2. And it does this better than mp3 players, TV's, typewriters, telephones, Kindle tablets, and Playstations.
Smartphones can "do" a lot of the things other devices can, but it's usually not pleasant in comparison and for that reason I see them as backups or benchwarmers and I don't see them as a fun toy to spend lots of money on.
Slashdot Mirror
In day-to-day life videos are mainly used when somebody feels wronged. People are rarely ever as motivated to reward others for good work. I pity the poor customer service worker who could have dozens of people recording him every day, looking for evidence to bring to his manager.
In the past, greater accountability has brought greater bureaucracy and more rules. IF Google Glass is a huge hit I would expect it to make human interactions more robotic and more stressful.
What does a "phone" need 8 cores for? Is it supposed to multitask many phone calls at once?
If you want to shut absolutely everything out, get some high quality earmuffs (the kind they use at gun ranges) and wear earbuds (or earplugs) inside of them. Then start your playlist or get a white noise mp3 from amazon or wherever. A bomb could go off in your dorm and you probably wouldn't hear it. On the other hand you probably wouldn't be able to hear fire alarms or anything either, so use with caution...
If you have a program and a company stops supporting it, it means no more patches. In the cloud, it means it's gone forever and you're out of luck.
Tapping on a screen is not the most natural way to communicate with people. You should assign your best men to this problem to invent a solution. But before you do I have a question for you. What if we used our phones to call people and talk to them?
Seriously what is with this guy? Why is this so complicated?
You can do quite a lot with SMS: Google SMS does weather, search, directions, gmail, news headlines, etc. Twitter is a good example of an app (originally) based on text messaging. It may not be pretty, but it is simple, reliable, and efficient. For those reasons it is an important lifeline, Wikipedia obviously sees it that way, and I'm glad it's not being forgotten.
It looks like if I waited much longer to buy it, I wouldn't be able to. Apparently if you stick around long enough you will live to see a respectable version of Symbian. And that makes the situation even more tragic, because just as Symbian is (almost) caught up, they decide to kill it and hitch their cart to Microsoft, the most laughable non-innovator of the last decade. Predictably, this has failed, and now my only wonder is whether this new phone will outlive Nokia, like some artifact from before its shameful marriage of desperation with Microsoft, when it still had something to be proud of.
This is such self-serving BS. Microsoft needs a single, unified OS, not you. Microsoft did what they needed to do, for themselves, and this argument was invented after the fact to make it look like it's good for the consumer. What I need is an operating system that doesn't have to reboot every month on Patch Tuesday.
Try the wikimedia traffic analysis instead: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
Oh no, desktops and laptops are all the way down to 84%. Clearly their time is over.
---
Sent via my PC
Normal people don't care about the OS, the "desktop environment," the openness of the kernel or its ABI stability. They don't even know what those things mean. People don't use computers for the sake of computers, only nerds do that. People use computers because they do things like write documents or fix vacation photos. If Facebook only worked with Linux, then everyone would use Linux. Writing some killer app and only ever releasing it on Linux is the only way a programmer can get people to switch. Otherwise your best bet is a businessman like Steve Jobs to come along. Look at all the people using iOS. Do you think people are buying iPhones because OMG iOS!!! No.
I don't think NVIDIA is doing anything wrong, but I'm sick of hearing the profit motive used as a euphemism for antisocial or greedy behavior. That's not the way capitalism is supposed to work and everybody needs to know this. Any business textbook will tell you that the profit motive is not meant to be synonymous with greed, but in practice that is how most Americans think of it. I don't know how people got tricked or corrupted into this way of thinking but we're all paying the price now as fraud played a huge part in the economy's destruction.
If you want to improve upon television, you could start by not having all 900 channels suck.
I've had two credit card numbers stolen from me in the last two years due to companies getting hacked. But I've never been robbed in my entire life. In my experience cash is more secure.
On top of that, these electronic payment methods just add middlemen who skim money off the top and make everything more expensive. It's not good for the economy and I've stopped using credit cards for most purchases. I'm missing out on cash rewards but I just think of it like giving charity.
Sorry, this doesn't vindicate climate denial at all. He's just one scientist who made kooky predictions and if you think he's at all important then you need a remedial course in logic. As a matter of fact, climate change has been occurring shockingly fast, faster than even the worst case scenarios were predicting (source http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/06/us-climate-canada-idUSTRE6145KP20100206). Due to a complete political failure to address the issue, an 11 degF rise in temperature is expected.
The platform doesn't matter. Nobody cares about computers enough to care whether it runs Windows or Linux. All the things you find great about Linux are boring and worthless to the average person because their life does not revolve around computers.
You might be able to get people to convert if Linux had some killer applications that Windows didn't. People do actually care about what they can and cannot do with their computer. You can do far more with a Windows computer than you can do with Linux. Many powerful and important applications are not available on Linux. But this isn't likely to change, because most people who have great ideas want to make money off of them, and there's not a lot of money to be made on Linux.
I'm an "environmentalist" but the idea of high gas prices being good is crazy to me. The assumption that people will react logically to oil scarcity is so naive. People will actually just fight to hold on to their present lifestyle rather than accept change. Instead of pushing for sustainability or efficiency, what will actually happen is more support for "drill baby drill," oil wars, tar sands development, and the possibility of mass synthetic fuel production.
Smartphones usually do not outmatch the devices they are supposed to replace. Being limited to pocket size basically ensures this. In contrast, computers usually are much better at everything. With a computer, you can play mp3/tv/video; write email/docs/programs; make and receive phone calls; read Kindle books; and play anything from Solitaire to Starcraft 2. And it does this better than mp3 players, TV's, typewriters, telephones, Kindle tablets, and Playstations.
Smartphones can "do" a lot of the things other devices can, but it's usually not pleasant in comparison and for that reason I see them as backups or benchwarmers and I don't see them as a fun toy to spend lots of money on.