We're saying the same thing. I'm not trashing tablets or saying they're useless, I'm just saying that they're not competing with computers (or at least not the things we typically think of when we hear the word "computer"). They're competing with smartphones. And as you noted, tablets are definitely better than phones at some things.
Just add water, and you'll turn the place into a giant Chia Pet.
If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.
And don't tell me there's no water.
There's no water.
The shit falls out of the sky every day.
Have you ever seen Nevada? Have you ever seen a picture of Nevada? Has anyone ever passingly described Nevada to you?
and try to tell me that water is too "difficult".
You are completely unqualified to have this discussion. Do you know where water comes from? Obviously not. You think the shit falls out of the sky. Well, by all means, educate yourself. That's where water comes from if you live in the American West. Damn near all of it. If you live in Las Vegas, you're drinking from the Colorado. If you live in L.A., you're drinking from the Colorado. If you live in Phoenix, you're drinking from the Colorado. All the drinking water, all the irrigation, all of everything. And we are running out of Colorado River. Do you get it now?
Even if your argument is as basic as "Tablets are just a big phone"
Not quite that basic, but sure, that's close enough. I'd phrase it more like "it's a phone pretending to be a computer."
I still don't see how that's a particularly damaging complaint.
Not a complaint. Just a statement.
The biggest problem that I have with my phone is that the screen is too small. A tablet goes a long way to solve that.
And that's fine. But this discussion is about the idea that tablets are replacing computers. (You did read the fine article, did you not? No? That's okay, me either.) And I'm saying that they're not only not replacing computers, they're not even competing with them. They're competing with phones.
Sure, there's a ton of useless fucking land in Nevada. What the hell are those cows gonna eat? Where are those greenhouses gonna get their water from? Sure, you can engineer your way around that for a zillion dollars, but it's never gonna pay for itself.
It's not like you're the first person to look at an aerial map and say "whoa, there's a lot of room down there!" There is, but it's useless. Cost-benefit analysis says "Not only no, but hell no."
Sure, they're obviously what everybody wants. Which is why everyone still has a laptop. Even the rubes that bought a tablet still have a laptop.
Come on. They tried to sell us this four years ago, when they didn't have touchscreens and were called netbooks. They sold like hotcakes for about six months, and no one's bought one since. And I have a netbook. They're handy like 1% of the time, but mostly I just use my, you know, computer.
For a lot of people it could probably replace a laptop
A lot of people already have something that "replaces a laptop" for them. They're called phones. I sure don't see either phones or computers going away as a result of this.
I'm not going to flame you, but I have seen mixed results at best when clients of mine have been using iTunes (I've never used it myself). It seems to be about as good as the metadata it's working with, which is not unreasonable to expect, but is the inherent flaw in any database-y kind of media organizer. What seems to separate iTunes from the pack is its unique ability to actually make manual searching for files harder if you let it. (I am aware that this behavior can be turned off.)
As for myself, I've pretty much succumbed to the inevitable and gone with good old-fashioned directories and filenames for most things, aware of all the limitations of that approach that the summary laid out. My music is well tagged and sensibly named (by me and Easytag) and played either on my mp3 player or through Amarok. Photos I try to tag myself with Digikam, but I mostly just don't have the patience for it so they're a mess, if I get them in sensibly named folders I usually call it a win. Everything else just goes in folders like Music Videos, Movies, etc, and I just live with it. It's really quite rare (rare like never) that I do anything that requires any searching more complex than "what's the name of that movie" anyway, except, as previously noted, with my music.
Anyway, just to reiterate, I'm not flaming iTunes, I'm just talking about the (seemingly) inherent crappiness of database solutions for media. Either you have to tag stuff yourself and do it consistently (something I'm willing to do for my music but that's it), or you just live with it, in which case why not just use directories?
No doubt. Right now at this moment I've got 224 Gb of audio. In all honesty, no, that's not 100% "stuff I got legally," but easily 2/3 of it is, probably more. The lion's share of that is CDs I've ripped to FLAC. I'm not a big movie/TV buff, but I could see a collection like that getting huge in a hurry too.
You're failing to grasp that a natural right, as an abstract concept, is still present even if it is being ignored. That is why it is universal and inalienable, even though it may not be recognized in practice.
That's ridiculous. Take an American citizen, a Saudi citizen, and a Chinese citizen. Ask them what their natural rights are. You will get three sets of answers. Not universal. Not inalienable. Not natural. A man-made concept. Split all the hairs you like.
Oh, so a "natural right" is in fact an abstract concept that is neither universal nor inalienable, neither natural nor a right. Should have just said so from the start, we wouldn't have had to have this argument.
Yeah it does. You can demand any sort of ludicrous concession you like as an added rider to selling me that CD. You can say that I can only listen to it in the dark hopping on one foot while wearing nothing but boxers and a smile. But the only thing that makes that enforceable is a license.
They're not universal. They're not inalienable. God damn, are they ever not inalienable. For most of human history (and in a lot of places right now) they are absolutely alienable. They're privileges that exist in some places at some times. There's no such thing as a "natural right."
Slashdot Mirror
We're saying the same thing. I'm not trashing tablets or saying they're useless, I'm just saying that they're not competing with computers (or at least not the things we typically think of when we hear the word "computer"). They're competing with smartphones. And as you noted, tablets are definitely better than phones at some things.
Just add water, and you'll turn the place into a giant Chia Pet.
If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.
And don't tell me there's no water.
There's no water.
The shit falls out of the sky every day.
Have you ever seen Nevada? Have you ever seen a picture of Nevada? Has anyone ever passingly described Nevada to you?
and try to tell me that water is too "difficult".
You are completely unqualified to have this discussion. Do you know where water comes from? Obviously not. You think the shit falls out of the sky. Well, by all means, educate yourself. That's where water comes from if you live in the American West. Damn near all of it. If you live in Las Vegas, you're drinking from the Colorado. If you live in L.A., you're drinking from the Colorado. If you live in Phoenix, you're drinking from the Colorado. All the drinking water, all the irrigation, all of everything. And we are running out of Colorado River. Do you get it now?
Even if your argument is as basic as "Tablets are just a big phone"
Not quite that basic, but sure, that's close enough. I'd phrase it more like "it's a phone pretending to be a computer."
I still don't see how that's a particularly damaging complaint.
Not a complaint. Just a statement.
The biggest problem that I have with my phone is that the screen is too small. A tablet goes a long way to solve that.
And that's fine. But this discussion is about the idea that tablets are replacing computers. (You did read the fine article, did you not? No? That's okay, me either.) And I'm saying that they're not only not replacing computers, they're not even competing with them. They're competing with phones.
You're a fucking idiot.
Oh, better yet! It's a crippled netbook! How could that fail to revolutionize computing?
Sheesh.
Sure, there's a ton of useless fucking land in Nevada. What the hell are those cows gonna eat? Where are those greenhouses gonna get their water from? Sure, you can engineer your way around that for a zillion dollars, but it's never gonna pay for itself.
It's not like you're the first person to look at an aerial map and say "whoa, there's a lot of room down there!" There is, but it's useless. Cost-benefit analysis says "Not only no, but hell no."
Web browsing on a tablet is good enough for 90% of the people out there.
Email on a tablet is good enough for 90% of the people out there.
Those people probably already have smartphones.
Gaming on a tablet is good enough for 90% of the people out there.
No it is not.
Word processing on a tablet is good enough for maybe 50% of the people out there.
Programming on a tablet is good enough for maybe 1% of the people out there.
Sure.
So they're not good at everything, but they're very decent at a lot of stuff.
No they're not. They're decent at like two things that smartphones are already decent at.
They are a credible replacement for desktop/laptop computers for a lot of people.
Once more with feeling...Those people are doing these things on their phones.
Yeah, putting that cellphone processor into a case ten times as big as a phone and charging $500 for it sure is a bargain, huh?
Sure, they're obviously what everybody wants. Which is why everyone still has a laptop. Even the rubes that bought a tablet still have a laptop.
Come on. They tried to sell us this four years ago, when they didn't have touchscreens and were called netbooks. They sold like hotcakes for about six months, and no one's bought one since. And I have a netbook. They're handy like 1% of the time, but mostly I just use my, you know, computer.
For a lot of people it could probably replace a laptop
A lot of people already have something that "replaces a laptop" for them. They're called phones. I sure don't see either phones or computers going away as a result of this.
You really need a more active job.
No shit. And we were certainly not one of the largest agrarian cultures on the planet prior to the 1850s, were we? 'Smath.
I've driven through Nevada plenty of times. Where is this tillable land of which you speak?
I'm not going to flame you, but I have seen mixed results at best when clients of mine have been using iTunes (I've never used it myself). It seems to be about as good as the metadata it's working with, which is not unreasonable to expect, but is the inherent flaw in any database-y kind of media organizer. What seems to separate iTunes from the pack is its unique ability to actually make manual searching for files harder if you let it. (I am aware that this behavior can be turned off.)
As for myself, I've pretty much succumbed to the inevitable and gone with good old-fashioned directories and filenames for most things, aware of all the limitations of that approach that the summary laid out. My music is well tagged and sensibly named (by me and Easytag) and played either on my mp3 player or through Amarok. Photos I try to tag myself with Digikam, but I mostly just don't have the patience for it so they're a mess, if I get them in sensibly named folders I usually call it a win. Everything else just goes in folders like Music Videos, Movies, etc, and I just live with it. It's really quite rare (rare like never) that I do anything that requires any searching more complex than "what's the name of that movie" anyway, except, as previously noted, with my music.
Anyway, just to reiterate, I'm not flaming iTunes, I'm just talking about the (seemingly) inherent crappiness of database solutions for media. Either you have to tag stuff yourself and do it consistently (something I'm willing to do for my music but that's it), or you just live with it, in which case why not just use directories?
No doubt. Right now at this moment I've got 224 Gb of audio. In all honesty, no, that's not 100% "stuff I got legally," but easily 2/3 of it is, probably more. The lion's share of that is CDs I've ripped to FLAC. I'm not a big movie/TV buff, but I could see a collection like that getting huge in a hurry too.
How is that relevant to my statement?
You have no idea how the entertainment industry works. Educate yourself, then come back here and troll again.
I don't think it's Isohunt's fault that the majority of things that third parties choose to share via torrent are illegal.
while torrent is a valid way to distribute something like Linux, isoHunt is hardly where a person looking for a Linux distro would go to find it
Bullshit, I do it all the time. Way faster than clicking through websites to find a download link.
You're failing to grasp that a natural right, as an abstract concept, is still present even if it is being ignored. That is why it is universal and inalienable, even though it may not be recognized in practice.
That's ridiculous. Take an American citizen, a Saudi citizen, and a Chinese citizen. Ask them what their natural rights are. You will get three sets of answers. Not universal. Not inalienable. Not natural. A man-made concept. Split all the hairs you like.
Universal (adj.): including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception, present or occurring everywhere
Inalienable (adj.): incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
(From Merriam-Webster)
Neither of those words apply to the idea that you are describing. You are describing "legal rights" or "civil rights."
Oh, so a "natural right" is in fact an abstract concept that is neither universal nor inalienable, neither natural nor a right. Should have just said so from the start, we wouldn't have had to have this argument.
Enjoy your decline into irrelevance and the dark ages. I used to greatly admire what America stood for
You had me up to here. But now I'm forced to say "Shut your hypocritical Eurotrash mouth. How's your fucking Eurozone working out for you?"
Yeah it does. You can demand any sort of ludicrous concession you like as an added rider to selling me that CD. You can say that I can only listen to it in the dark hopping on one foot while wearing nothing but boxers and a smile. But the only thing that makes that enforceable is a license.
They're not universal. They're not inalienable. God damn, are they ever not inalienable. For most of human history (and in a lot of places right now) they are absolutely alienable. They're privileges that exist in some places at some times. There's no such thing as a "natural right."
That's not a sale. That's a license.