Because a laptop battery doesn't last for two weeks. Because a laptop screen can't be read from any angle. Because a laptop is much heavier than a Kindle. Because a laptop doesn't have always-on, free Internet access.
I like how it takes into account solar flares that knock out GPS reception, and signal reflection in the city that causes location jumps, and non-public roads that shouldn't be taxed, and size and weight of the car as related to the actual effect the car has on the roads, and, and, and....
I don't know how strong my point will be here, since I haven't bothered to look up the data, but I wonder....
How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies? From first look, it doesn't seem like that many at all. And if that's the case, then the companies that sold out to Google, did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors.
I don't see why this is such a showstopper for other book scanning projects. Right off the top of my head I can think of three methods of dewarping book scans that have nothing do to with Google's methods. While Google's method is definitely quite interesting and seems like a great solution, it is by no means whatsoever the only way of accomplishing this.
This astounds me. These numbers only represent a few companies. Consider that it would take about 5,790 yottabytes* to store a 150lb human body (at a byte per atom). Now consider that people keep in their pocket more storage than existed on the planet 30 years ago. So in another 30 years.... wow. Just think about that for a minute.
I can see what's trying to be said, but look at games like Portal. They took a simple concept, portals, and built an entire game around this one simple idea. Sure the game is not long, but it's a brilliant game. It's loved by almost every single person who plays it. Not just enjoyed... loved. And if you listen to the commentary while playing the game, you can really see just how much thought and effort they put into even this simple game.
I just don't see the problem with this. Game creators should continually try to innovate. No, they're not always going to hit their mark, but occasionally they will totally nail it, like with Portal, and gaming as a whole will take one more step forward. That's a Good Thing.
This "protest" could, on the other hand, give Google some really good material from which to refine their click fraud detection algorithms. They know the click-fraud is coming, and they can use it as a chance to collect even more accurate data about how the click fraud is being perpetrated.
I can't tell if this is win-win for everyone or not. The protesters get to have their protest, Google comes away with better click fraud detection, and the advertisers subsequently get better results for their money spent. Who's losing here?
Those must have been huge additional programs. In a default install of Windows 7 (not trimming or adding any features from the default install ISO from Microsoft) I was able to install Windows 7 on my Dell Mini's 16GB SSD with zero problems and I still had 5.7GB free at the end of the install. Even with Microsoft Office 2007 installed, I still have 4.5GB free. Coupled with a 16GB SD card in the media card slot, I'm doing just fine for space on my 16GB Dell Mini.
One problem is that "runs faster" and "feels faster" can be viewed as a subjective situation. If the UI is responding more quickly to my actions ("feels faster"), one could easily argue that whether it's actually running faster is less important. If I get X*3 units of work done with Windows 7, versus X*2 units of work done with Windows XP, then you could say my computer runs faster because it helps me do more work faster. If that increase in productivity is only because it "feels faster" then "feels" and "runs" subjectively become the same thing.
My experience doesn't match their assessment. I'm running Windows 7 on my Dell Mini and it runs faster than Windows XP Home ran on this exact same machine.
How the hell did they get a.gov domain considering that they aren't even in power yet? And even if they were, is this the kind of stuff.gov was created for?
The word "senator" is the word I think you're looking for. Because, you know, the Senate is part of the government.
Actually, I think we're just seeing that Google's product launches tend to have similar paths whether they are software or hardware. (I know the G1 phone isn't technically a Google product, but realistically, yes, it is.)
Google products tend to launch with rough edges, but with enough "Wow!" to generate buzz and interest. Initial comments tend to range from "Hey, that's cool!" to "Eh, [such and such] does that too, and Google's has less features." Over time, they tend to steadily polish up and turn into really stellar product offerings farther down the road. Look at Google Maps, Google Docs, Google Calendar, GMail, Google Reader, and so on.
And while some of their software products go flop (Google Lively, anyone?), most of them tend to take that steady, measured approach to a solid, highly usable product. The G1 phone seems to be on that same path.
It's not even funny how far I am from being qualified to make this guess, but I'll do it anyway....
Maybe a large asteroid of ice or large comet hit it on the night side and then melted when Mercury turned the crater to the day side, causing all the runoff to create the crazy channels radiating out from the crater?
Okay, commence ripping this theory to shreds. Ready? Go!
I know this topic is a day old and stale, but I have to respond anyway. What you say is totally opposite my experience.
"When a new Mac OS makes you upgrade, it's like telling someone with a 10-year-old BMW they need to buy a new one, and it's probably going to be cheaper than the one you bought before, and the new one will go faster and farther and run on biodiesel. When Microsoft tells you to upgrade, it's like the phone company telling you to buy a new phone, because the new ones come in designer colors, thus the customers have a bit of ambivalence."
OS X "makes" you upgrade far earlier than Windows does. I run a lab of A/V computers that used to run version 10.3 and had their Final Cut Pro suite of apps installed. Magically one day all the installations of Final Cut Pro stopped being able to capture footage from the cameras. What?! Totally out of the blue. We checked everything. Turns out it was a Quicktime update that Apple had recently pushed out. Did a fix for this come from Apple to restore the ability to capture? No. According to all the Apple support forums, I was supposed to "just deal with it and pay for the upgrade" and "why was I running such old software anyway?" and "how could I expect Apple to keep supporting old software forever?" This just totally pissed me off. I was left high and dry with no solution but to shell out more money for an upgraded OS and upgraded editing software. The software wasn't more than 3 years old, and this was OS X 10.3, which is only one major point release behind the current version of the OS.
So you're statement, in my opinion, is totally wrong. The above is just one specific example, but it's been my experience that the solution to many problems that come up with Apple hardware or software is to simply bite the bullet, open the wallet, and upgrade.
"If your computer doesn't meet those specs, it's time to upgrade your hardware or stick with Tiger for now. And if you're still running Mac "Classic" OS apps, forget it. Leopard drops support for what was once Mac OS 9."
So when Vista needs beefier hardware and some Windows 98 apps are broken on it, the reason is because Microsoft sucks and it's their fault for requiring a current computer to run their current OS. But when Leopard needs beefier specs, it's the user's fault they haven't upgraded by now and it's all taken in stride.
Sorry, can't say much more than that. If you've never used Ruby on Rails, I'm sure CakePHP would be a joy to work in. However, if you've used Ruby on Rails, then CakePHP will hurt. The Ruby language is beautifully suited to this kind of framework, and PHP is not.
This is not to knock CakePHP. In its own right, CakePHP is an excellent framework and a lot of quality work has gone into making it what it is. It's a powerful framework.
The move to this kind of framework can be quite a mind job, whether you're moving to Rails or CakePHP. It requires breaking down very solid foundations of ideas that you've built up over the years on how to build a web application. If PHP is your thing, then weathering that mind job will be all the more easier if you're doing it in a language already familiar to you. But if you're willing to try something new, then it's worth making the jump to Ruby on Rails.
If you read the DMCA, from what I understand it's not illegal to circumvent DRM for non-infringing use (backups of DVD's, etc.). As far as I can tell, it is illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" some thing (program, device, etc.) or some way (method, service etc.) that enables someone to circumvent DRM.
To summarize: it's not illegal to actually do the circumvention for fair use, but it is illegal to make available a way for someone to do so. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I got from actually reading the law itself.
So it sounds like this guy is in trouble for "offer[ing] to the public" some way to get the coupons in some infringing way.
I can't stand trackballs. I find they are much less accurate than mice. I cringe when I see trackball users spin their trackball to get to the other side of the screen and the spend three or four movements to fine tune their exact mouse position. Trackballs drive me nuts.
One of the big marketing points they've been pushing in their ads for the iPhone is that you don't have to browse a "watered down Internet" on the iPhone. Go watch the ad called Watered Down.
If Apple thinks their browser is good/robust enough to browse the "real" web, then making my site look fine in Safari (which any web developer should be doing anyway) is all I should have to do.
Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.
As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.
* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.
This is a joke, right? Of course they're making a second generation. It's like saying that rumors are confirmed that there will be a newer version of the Linux kernel. Umm... ya think?
Slashdot Mirror
Factor in online sales and I think this percentage would be significantly less.
Why not a laptop, you ask?
Because a laptop battery doesn't last for two weeks.
Because a laptop screen can't be read from any angle.
Because a laptop is much heavier than a Kindle.
Because a laptop doesn't have always-on, free Internet access.
Because a laptop is not a book reader.
I like how it takes into account solar flares that knock out GPS reception, and signal reflection in the city that causes location jumps, and non-public roads that shouldn't be taxed, and size and weight of the car as related to the actual effect the car has on the roads, and, and, and....
I don't know how strong my point will be here, since I haven't bothered to look up the data, but I wonder....
How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies? From first look, it doesn't seem like that many at all. And if that's the case, then the companies that sold out to Google, did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors.
I don't see why this is such a showstopper for other book scanning projects. Right off the top of my head I can think of three methods of dewarping book scans that have nothing do to with Google's methods. While Google's method is definitely quite interesting and seems like a great solution, it is by no means whatsoever the only way of accomplishing this.
This astounds me. These numbers only represent a few companies. Consider that it would take about 5,790 yottabytes* to store a 150lb human body (at a byte per atom). Now consider that people keep in their pocket more storage than existed on the planet 30 years ago. So in another 30 years.... wow. Just think about that for a minute.
* giga tera peta exa zetta yotta
I can see what's trying to be said, but look at games like Portal. They took a simple concept, portals, and built an entire game around this one simple idea. Sure the game is not long, but it's a brilliant game. It's loved by almost every single person who plays it. Not just enjoyed... loved. And if you listen to the commentary while playing the game, you can really see just how much thought and effort they put into even this simple game.
I just don't see the problem with this. Game creators should continually try to innovate. No, they're not always going to hit their mark, but occasionally they will totally nail it, like with Portal, and gaming as a whole will take one more step forward. That's a Good Thing.
This "protest" could, on the other hand, give Google some really good material from which to refine their click fraud detection algorithms. They know the click-fraud is coming, and they can use it as a chance to collect even more accurate data about how the click fraud is being perpetrated.
I can't tell if this is win-win for everyone or not. The protesters get to have their protest, Google comes away with better click fraud detection, and the advertisers subsequently get better results for their money spent. Who's losing here?
Those must have been huge additional programs. In a default install of Windows 7 (not trimming or adding any features from the default install ISO from Microsoft) I was able to install Windows 7 on my Dell Mini's 16GB SSD with zero problems and I still had 5.7GB free at the end of the install. Even with Microsoft Office 2007 installed, I still have 4.5GB free. Coupled with a 16GB SD card in the media card slot, I'm doing just fine for space on my 16GB Dell Mini.
One problem is that "runs faster" and "feels faster" can be viewed as a subjective situation. If the UI is responding more quickly to my actions ("feels faster"), one could easily argue that whether it's actually running faster is less important. If I get X*3 units of work done with Windows 7, versus X*2 units of work done with Windows XP, then you could say my computer runs faster because it helps me do more work faster. If that increase in productivity is only because it "feels faster" then "feels" and "runs" subjectively become the same thing.
My experience doesn't match their assessment. I'm running Windows 7 on my Dell Mini and it runs faster than Windows XP Home ran on this exact same machine.
except for when you dont have internet connectivity, then you cant get them even if your life depended on it.
Except that Google Docs does have offline access via Google Gears. So, yes, you can access them offline.
How the hell did they get a .gov domain considering that they aren't even in power yet? And even if they were, is this the kind of stuff .gov was created for?
The word "senator" is the word I think you're looking for. Because, you know, the Senate is part of the government.
(Okay, I apologize for being an ass about this.)
Actually, I think we're just seeing that Google's product launches tend to have similar paths whether they are software or hardware. (I know the G1 phone isn't technically a Google product, but realistically, yes, it is.)
Google products tend to launch with rough edges, but with enough "Wow!" to generate buzz and interest. Initial comments tend to range from "Hey, that's cool!" to "Eh, [such and such] does that too, and Google's has less features." Over time, they tend to steadily polish up and turn into really stellar product offerings farther down the road. Look at Google Maps, Google Docs, Google Calendar, GMail, Google Reader, and so on.
And while some of their software products go flop (Google Lively, anyone?), most of them tend to take that steady, measured approach to a solid, highly usable product. The G1 phone seems to be on that same path.
It's not even funny how far I am from being qualified to make this guess, but I'll do it anyway....
Maybe a large asteroid of ice or large comet hit it on the night side and then melted when Mercury turned the crater to the day side, causing all the runoff to create the crazy channels radiating out from the crater?
Okay, commence ripping this theory to shreds. Ready? Go!
I know this topic is a day old and stale, but I have to respond anyway. What you say is totally opposite my experience.
"When a new Mac OS makes you upgrade, it's like telling someone with a 10-year-old BMW they need to buy a new one, and it's probably going to be cheaper than the one you bought before, and the new one will go faster and farther and run on biodiesel. When Microsoft tells you to upgrade, it's like the phone company telling you to buy a new phone, because the new ones come in designer colors, thus the customers have a bit of ambivalence."
OS X "makes" you upgrade far earlier than Windows does. I run a lab of A/V computers that used to run version 10.3 and had their Final Cut Pro suite of apps installed. Magically one day all the installations of Final Cut Pro stopped being able to capture footage from the cameras. What?! Totally out of the blue. We checked everything. Turns out it was a Quicktime update that Apple had recently pushed out. Did a fix for this come from Apple to restore the ability to capture? No. According to all the Apple support forums, I was supposed to "just deal with it and pay for the upgrade" and "why was I running such old software anyway?" and "how could I expect Apple to keep supporting old software forever?" This just totally pissed me off. I was left high and dry with no solution but to shell out more money for an upgraded OS and upgraded editing software. The software wasn't more than 3 years old, and this was OS X 10.3, which is only one major point release behind the current version of the OS.
So you're statement, in my opinion, is totally wrong. The above is just one specific example, but it's been my experience that the solution to many problems that come up with Apple hardware or software is to simply bite the bullet, open the wallet, and upgrade.
"If your computer doesn't meet those specs, it's time to upgrade your hardware or stick with Tiger for now. And if you're still running Mac "Classic" OS apps, forget it. Leopard drops support for what was once Mac OS 9."
So when Vista needs beefier hardware and some Windows 98 apps are broken on it, the reason is because Microsoft sucks and it's their fault for requiring a current computer to run their current OS. But when Leopard needs beefier specs, it's the user's fault they haven't upgraded by now and it's all taken in stride.
I get it. Makes total sense.
Sorry, can't say much more than that. If you've never used Ruby on Rails, I'm sure CakePHP would be a joy to work in. However, if you've used Ruby on Rails, then CakePHP will hurt. The Ruby language is beautifully suited to this kind of framework, and PHP is not.
This is not to knock CakePHP. In its own right, CakePHP is an excellent framework and a lot of quality work has gone into making it what it is. It's a powerful framework.
The move to this kind of framework can be quite a mind job, whether you're moving to Rails or CakePHP. It requires breaking down very solid foundations of ideas that you've built up over the years on how to build a web application. If PHP is your thing, then weathering that mind job will be all the more easier if you're doing it in a language already familiar to you. But if you're willing to try something new, then it's worth making the jump to Ruby on Rails.
If you read the DMCA, from what I understand it's not illegal to circumvent DRM for non-infringing use (backups of DVD's, etc.). As far as I can tell, it is illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" some thing (program, device, etc.) or some way (method, service etc.) that enables someone to circumvent DRM.
To summarize: it's not illegal to actually do the circumvention for fair use, but it is illegal to make available a way for someone to do so. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I got from actually reading the law itself.
So it sounds like this guy is in trouble for "offer[ing] to the public" some way to get the coupons in some infringing way.
I can't stand trackballs. I find they are much less accurate than mice. I cringe when I see trackball users spin their trackball to get to the other side of the screen and the spend three or four movements to fine tune their exact mouse position. Trackballs drive me nuts.
Does anyone else see something wrong with calling it a liquid-filled airbag?
One of the big marketing points they've been pushing in their ads for the iPhone is that you don't have to browse a "watered down Internet" on the iPhone. Go watch the ad called Watered Down.
If Apple thinks their browser is good/robust enough to browse the "real" web, then making my site look fine in Safari (which any web developer should be doing anyway) is all I should have to do.
Care to argue otherwise?
Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.
As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.
* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.
This is a joke, right? Of course they're making a second generation. It's like saying that rumors are confirmed that there will be a newer version of the Linux kernel. Umm... ya think?
How is posting to a public blog on the Internet "quiet"?