On spec, maybe it is less of a toy... and unfortunately, that's what people buy tablets for. Toys.
Is the tablet market grumbling and saying "gee, what we really want is something we can create a spreadsheet on"? Me, I think not and Microsoft may be missing on getting the market as, once again, the "I'm a PC" guys are talking about business uses and not entertainment.
My tablet isn't what I do my work on, it's what I take travelling with me, surf the web, find restaurants, play some stupid games, send a few emails. I didn't buy it to do 'work' on, I bought it to play with, and to use it to look up stuff in the living room or amuse myself on a plane and give me connectivity without dragging my laptop.
If what you're looking for is a small business machine, what you describe sounds pretty cool. But my tablet is more of an e-reader, video game, web surfing, play music and movies kinda thing.
So I wonder if Microsoft is doing what they've always done, and envisioned a world where what people most want to have Office and Outlook -- when what people really want is anything but Office and Outlook. They want an oversized MP3 player that can play games and surf the web and watch videos on Facebook.
They don't need to complete the TPS reports by Thursday.
Not without knowing what it is, and not in a browser that's allowed to do much more than load pages, ignore scripts, and block cookies.
I don't make it a practice to go to random links I can't tell where I'm going or visit a web site I've never heard of unless I have some idea of what it is.
I place very little trust in the internet as a rule.
WHY? I never click on such links for the elementary fact that I have no idea where they lead
Agreed. If I have no idea where a link is going, I'm sure as hell not trusting it enough to click on it.
I want to know what domain I'm going to, and since.ly is Lybia, not exactly an entity I'm going to give blanket trust to.
I don't trust URL shorteners because I have no idea who controls them or what's on the other end of a link. They've always struck me as a terrible idea.
So, what have we learned? That Buddhism has schisms just like every other religion, and that it's just as batshit crazy as the others.
That's an interpretation, and you're entitled to it. At its core, Buddhism mostly boils down to "play nice with others, and don't saddle yourself with extra baggage by being an asshole". Nothing inherently crazy about that.
It's my impression that they don't wantonly kill people with opposing viewpoints as casually as those of other religions (I'm looking at you, Abraham-derived subsets, you know who you are), but I could be wrong.
I've certainly never seen anything in favor of it, and we certainly have seen examples of competing groups of monks in Thailand basically fighting over who controls temples (and the corresponding revenues). What's happening in Burma is another example of that, where it's become a "Buddhist v Muslim" thing.
There are certainly prohibitions against killing and the like, and I have no idea how people justify some things in the name of being Buddhists (or anything really).
The problem with humans, is you could take literally almost anything, and have it divide you up into "us and them", and then the human inclination to say "well, fuck them" comes into play.
To be perfectly honest, I've seen discussions about emacs vs vi almost devolve into fist fights because the emacs guys can't see they're wrong.;-) So, over time, any group is entirely capable of giving themselves such a narrow interpretation of the things they claim to believe in, to the point that they'd be willing to basically violate all of their supposed beliefs.
Some people imagine that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yanas or Bodhis but consider the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. The Mahayana has created many mystical Bodhisattvas while the Theravada considers a Bodhisattva as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world.
It makes for a good joke, but it's a little more nuanced than that.
I believe what you're essentially debating is a Simpson's quote.
You can't bring someone else's soul to enlightenment. Sounds like 'Every man for himself' to me.
Well, we're getting pretty far off topic, but two things:
1) Buddhism doesn't have a concept of the 'soul' in the same way as Western religions. The thing which would get reincarnated/lasts after you die isn't "you", but you're a subset of "it" and much more transient. The concept of self and what survives human life is a little different.
2) There's two major schools of Buddhism (and this is a very huge over-simplification): Therevada and Mahayana Buddism; with Theravada being more focused on your own enlightenment (for the reasons you cite), and Mahayana (literally 'the greater oxcart') which has an emphasis on enlightenment of everyone and helping them get there.
So, talking about bringing someone's 'soul' to enlightenment doesn't quite match up with the concepts in Buddhism.
Working to bring other people to enlightenment and benefit all, however, is a feature of all the Mahayana schools (Chan Buddhism in China, Zen in Japan, and all of the Tibetan schools). The Theravada stuff tends to be in and around Thailand/Vietnam.
But it is important to remember Buddhism isn't monolithic, and while they'll agree on some core stuff, there's probably some esoteric places where they differ by quite a bit.
You know, my practical experience in nuclear shielding is non-existent. My theoretical knowledge only slightly less non-existent.:-P
But I should think the minimum safe distance from an unshielded reactor would preclude anybody actually getting near enough the spacecraft to prep it for launch.
I also don't know enough about them to say if an unshielded reactor is essentially a bomb.
I'm sure if it was a viable alternative, someone at NASA would be considering it.
If Google really wants to change the world, they need to focus their resources, brains and dollars, on making the über battery.
And you somehow think this won't be part of that?
Publicity stunt or no, it means Google is helping fund research into both solar and the required batteries. At which point they should be entitled to all of the publicity this will generate.
It's basic research and some of these "never been done before" stunts which actually help push things forward.
The problem is Rockstar are console heads, for various reasons, and relegate the PC release to second class status.
I would call $800m worth of sales in 24 hours after launch a large number of really good reasons.
Would they have sold that much if they'd released PC only? Would the product have been as well tested if they released for both?
PC gamers might not be happy they don't get the title on release day -- but in terms of maximizing their sales/product release schedule, I'd say from a corporate perspective that seems to be a pretty damned good strategy.
"It doesn't mean we live in a 27 dimension manifold.... Doesn't mean we don't.;-)"
I'm a skeptic, a realist and quite baffled that someone could believe that way.
Also, you're someone with terrible reading comprehension, a loose grasp of humor, and a complete lack of understanding of emoticons -- I understand, the emoticon thing is still pretty new so you may be learning.
It connotes a joke, moron. As in epic whoosh.
The rest of everything you said is your own horseshit, because you've made up your little pile of crazy.
I honestly hope that you never ever tell a Religious person that they are foolish for believing in something they can't see since you hold the same belief
Dude, seriously, WTF?
I said I have no idea what this even means, and you are suddenly talking theology. So, I don't know one thing and therefore something else exists or doesn't exist? What is this, quantum bullshit?
we don't make the Universe exist because we built a model
Well, no shit. Did I make any assertions we're creating universes anywhere in my post? I asked how we could see anything outside of 3 dimensions through direct observation.
Again I say, WTF are you on about? Your entire most makes no sense to me.
Well, if this concept pans out, we'd be able to calculate all kinds of particle interactions we'd never be able to observe otherwise because those interaction would just be different facets of The One True Gem
Crap, so the "Time Cube" guy was right all along?;-)
It doesn't mean we live in a 27 dimension manifold.
Doesn't mean we don't.;-)
All direct observations to date point to a 3D universe.
Ummm... hang on a second. Won't any direct observation we make as 3D critters point to a 3D universe? Isn't that sort of inherent to us being only able to perceive 3D?
I'm not sure how we'd do any direct observations in any other dimensions. (Honestly, not a flame, I'm genuinely puzzled by how we could see anything else and every now and then something like this hurts my head)
I'm of the opinion that if you didn't create it, and your entity exists to do nothing than extort people for royalties on your patent... you are a patent troll.
That could be one difference... I've got mine locked to a landscape orientation because I find in portrait mode the fonts are too small. But I found the same thing on my 10" tablet.
Difference of opinion I guess... I've got a 7" and a 10" tablet, and I find the 7" one is just as usable/readable as the larger one.
Haven't done extensive testing or reading for hours, but I barely notice the screen difference -- the difference in weight yes, but the screen not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
On spec, maybe it is less of a toy ... and unfortunately, that's what people buy tablets for. Toys.
Is the tablet market grumbling and saying "gee, what we really want is something we can create a spreadsheet on"? Me, I think not and Microsoft may be missing on getting the market as, once again, the "I'm a PC" guys are talking about business uses and not entertainment.
My tablet isn't what I do my work on, it's what I take travelling with me, surf the web, find restaurants, play some stupid games, send a few emails. I didn't buy it to do 'work' on, I bought it to play with, and to use it to look up stuff in the living room or amuse myself on a plane and give me connectivity without dragging my laptop.
If what you're looking for is a small business machine, what you describe sounds pretty cool. But my tablet is more of an e-reader, video game, web surfing, play music and movies kinda thing.
So I wonder if Microsoft is doing what they've always done, and envisioned a world where what people most want to have Office and Outlook -- when what people really want is anything but Office and Outlook. They want an oversized MP3 player that can play games and surf the web and watch videos on Facebook.
They don't need to complete the TPS reports by Thursday.
Not without knowing what it is, and not in a browser that's allowed to do much more than load pages, ignore scripts, and block cookies.
I don't make it a practice to go to random links I can't tell where I'm going or visit a web site I've never heard of unless I have some idea of what it is.
I place very little trust in the internet as a rule.
Agreed. If I have no idea where a link is going, I'm sure as hell not trusting it enough to click on it.
I want to know what domain I'm going to, and since .ly is Lybia, not exactly an entity I'm going to give blanket trust to.
I don't trust URL shorteners because I have no idea who controls them or what's on the other end of a link. They've always struck me as a terrible idea.
Doh, high-level that is. :-P
Speaking of myopic bullshit which can be dismissed outright, here comes you.
I gave a very high, layman's explanation of something. Get over it.
That's an interpretation, and you're entitled to it. At its core, Buddhism mostly boils down to "play nice with others, and don't saddle yourself with extra baggage by being an asshole". Nothing inherently crazy about that.
I've certainly never seen anything in favor of it, and we certainly have seen examples of competing groups of monks in Thailand basically fighting over who controls temples (and the corresponding revenues). What's happening in Burma is another example of that, where it's become a "Buddhist v Muslim" thing.
There are certainly prohibitions against killing and the like, and I have no idea how people justify some things in the name of being Buddhists (or anything really).
The problem with humans, is you could take literally almost anything, and have it divide you up into "us and them", and then the human inclination to say "well, fuck them" comes into play.
To be perfectly honest, I've seen discussions about emacs vs vi almost devolve into fist fights because the emacs guys can't see they're wrong. ;-) So, over time, any group is entirely capable of giving themselves such a narrow interpretation of the things they claim to believe in, to the point that they'd be willing to basically violate all of their supposed beliefs.
My conclusion from this is humans are idiots.
LOL ... not really.
This might help:
It makes for a good joke, but it's a little more nuanced than that.
I believe what you're essentially debating is a Simpson's quote.
Well, we're getting pretty far off topic, but two things:
1) Buddhism doesn't have a concept of the 'soul' in the same way as Western religions. The thing which would get reincarnated/lasts after you die isn't "you", but you're a subset of "it" and much more transient. The concept of self and what survives human life is a little different.
2) There's two major schools of Buddhism (and this is a very huge over-simplification): Therevada and Mahayana Buddism; with Theravada being more focused on your own enlightenment (for the reasons you cite), and Mahayana (literally 'the greater oxcart') which has an emphasis on enlightenment of everyone and helping them get there.
So, talking about bringing someone's 'soul' to enlightenment doesn't quite match up with the concepts in Buddhism.
Working to bring other people to enlightenment and benefit all, however, is a feature of all the Mahayana schools (Chan Buddhism in China, Zen in Japan, and all of the Tibetan schools). The Theravada stuff tends to be in and around Thailand/Vietnam.
But it is important to remember Buddhism isn't monolithic, and while they'll agree on some core stuff, there's probably some esoteric places where they differ by quite a bit.
Hmmm ... I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
We could use lawyers for car bumpers, that would save them having to chase the ambulances.
You may be onto something here.
But it's the gamma radiation which is the one we're most concerned about, no?
Blocking the least dangerous stuff isn't the issue.
LOL ... pics, or it didn't happen.
You know, my practical experience in nuclear shielding is non-existent. My theoretical knowledge only slightly less non-existent. :-P
But I should think the minimum safe distance from an unshielded reactor would preclude anybody actually getting near enough the spacecraft to prep it for launch.
I also don't know enough about them to say if an unshielded reactor is essentially a bomb.
I'm sure if it was a viable alternative, someone at NASA would be considering it.
Likely because they need to be wrapped up in so much stuff so they're not killing everyone nearby.
And as far as I recall, you essentially need lead to block the radiation.
And you somehow think this won't be part of that?
Publicity stunt or no, it means Google is helping fund research into both solar and the required batteries. At which point they should be entitled to all of the publicity this will generate.
It's basic research and some of these "never been done before" stunts which actually help push things forward.
I would call $800m worth of sales in 24 hours after launch a large number of really good reasons.
Would they have sold that much if they'd released PC only? Would the product have been as well tested if they released for both?
PC gamers might not be happy they don't get the title on release day -- but in terms of maximizing their sales/product release schedule, I'd say from a corporate perspective that seems to be a pretty damned good strategy.
Also, you're someone with terrible reading comprehension, a loose grasp of humor, and a complete lack of understanding of emoticons -- I understand, the emoticon thing is still pretty new so you may be learning.
It connotes a joke, moron. As in epic whoosh.
The rest of everything you said is your own horseshit, because you've made up your little pile of crazy.
Go tilt at windmills somewhere else.
Dude, seriously, WTF?
I said I have no idea what this even means, and you are suddenly talking theology. So, I don't know one thing and therefore something else exists or doesn't exist? What is this, quantum bullshit?
Well, no shit. Did I make any assertions we're creating universes anywhere in my post? I asked how we could see anything outside of 3 dimensions through direct observation.
Again I say, WTF are you on about? Your entire most makes no sense to me.
Troi: Captain, I can 'feel' the amplituhedron.
Data: It's become sentient
Q: Foolish humans ... you could never hope to understand this.
Wesley: Oh sure, I made one in science class last week.
ALL: Wesley, STFU.
Crap, so the "Time Cube" guy was right all along? ;-)
Doesn't mean we don't. ;-)
Ummm ... hang on a second. Won't any direct observation we make as 3D critters point to a 3D universe? Isn't that sort of inherent to us being only able to perceive 3D?
I'm not sure how we'd do any direct observations in any other dimensions. (Honestly, not a flame, I'm genuinely puzzled by how we could see anything else and every now and then something like this hurts my head)
You know, you can probably safely generalize that to 'never trust any tech company to not screw its customers'.
Sooner or later they all can (and will) leave you holding the bag.
Which is precisely I never want to be an early adopter of technology, because you never really know how long it will last.
I'm of the opinion that if you didn't create it, and your entity exists to do nothing than extort people for royalties on your patent ... you are a patent troll.
That could be one difference ... I've got mine locked to a landscape orientation because I find in portrait mode the fonts are too small. But I found the same thing on my 10" tablet.
Difference of opinion I guess ... I've got a 7" and a 10" tablet, and I find the 7" one is just as usable/readable as the larger one.
Haven't done extensive testing or reading for hours, but I barely notice the screen difference -- the difference in weight yes, but the screen not so much.
At the risk of opening myself up for all kinds of internet snark ... does that 1" really make much of a difference?
Is an 8" tablet that much better than a 7" tablet?