If deception isn't necessary for placebos to work, does this mean the homeopathic medicine advocates can admit it's bullshit now?
Arguably, if it works as well as what modern medicine is doing, is it any more bullshit than that is?
I'm not advocating for homeopathy, but from what I understand... in some cases modern medicine would consider itself doing well if they could reach the levels of relief they get with placebos using actual medicine.
And, as someone I used to know in sales used to say... it's not a lie if you believe it.:-P Homeopathy may not be perceived as a "lie" by its practitioners.
You seem to be making the assumption that all computer programs are best accessed via the internet.
And you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I'm saying.:-P
A lot of us still like to have local program execution and read/write access. Pulling live information from the internet doesn't mean that you have to have separate apps to access each source of information.
I generally prefer to have as much of my information locally so that I can still access it off-line. One of my favorite apps is a reader for wikipedia which keeps the pages you view locally so you can read them offline.
However, I am saying that a native interface to view the content that you pull off the internet (some content, not all content) can simply be a better designed user interface than a web page.
The web as a one-size fits all model where everything needs to be pulled down every time has been around a while. But, it's not the last word, and there is room for improvement.
I can't help thinking that your post is either an elaborate exercise in irony, or else an excellent troll.
Have you considered the fact that neither interpretation is correct? Because, it is in fact, neither. Go back and re-read it.
How anyone can claim that accessing the internet is better on a phone than through a web browser on a full sized computer screen is beyond me.
Except, that's not what I said.
Primarily, I was talking about the iPad, not a phone. And, I was talking about accessing content and applications -- not "the internet" or a "web browser".
An iPad-native application to access content is a cleaner interface than simply viewing things in a web browser, specifically because it is optimized for the screen size and the difference in the interface. Because you use the device differently (as you will with any touch screen tablet that isn't trying to reproduce a desktop experience with a keyboard and a mouse).
I also said that moving away from having everything being a web-page is long overdue -- I generally find a lot of applications just simply don't lend themselves to being on the web, but people still insist on rolling out everything as a web page because that's what we've been doing.
Content delivery apps on any tablet gives us the opportunity for something new. In this case, an iPad newspaper -- while I'm not interested in subscription content from News Corp, I do have free news applications from the likes of BBC and Reuters. And, as I stated, reading content on a native app is simply a better designed interface than a web-page.
The web isn't going anywhere, but why should we slavishly stick to everything being a web-page when we have new types of user interfaces and technologies? Having a touch screen changes how you interact with the device, so to me, a native app to access the content makes more sense than sticking to the old web-page model. In this case, some content providers have decided that in addition to their web-pages, they would write a native app which you can also use to access their content. Customers get choice.
Human-Computer interaction can't just halt at the web-page, especially since the first tablets are showing us how we can do it better. However, this gets lost in the sea of Apple bashing and nobody is listening because "zomg I hate Apple". What Apple has done is to actually establish some new ways to interact with a device -- consequently, an app designed to use that has the possibility of being nicer to use than a web-page.
All of the above should be true for any touch-screen tablet. Specifically because it's not a "web browser on a full sized computer screen".
On line photos which could be downloaded for a fee (or free) were incorporated on the net before there even was a net.
And, indeed, ever since HTML has had the IMG tag. Sites like Flickr and Picasa are essentially hosting services.
I seriously hope Kodak gets smacked down hard over this. Judging by the quality of the last two Kodak printers my wife bought, I say good riddance to them.
This is essentially one of those "with a computer" patents.
So you're saying you're in favor of companies paywalling information in a pretty frame that's freely available
Nope. You said that -- I said:
I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.
I merely pointed out that a platform-native application is a better user interface than the web, especially on a touchscreen interface which gives you better ways to interact with it. I didn't say anything about paying for content (for or against), merely the way it is presented.
There are plenty of organizations which have made apps for their content, and they still give it away for free. I flatly refuse to pay for online content, but I do find, for example, the free news apps I have a nice format to read it -- of course, my primary news source is still Google news.
Paywalls and charging for content is happening (and going to continue) no matter what I think about it.
While this is all true in theory, my experience is that low-usage proprietary formats have one huge usability disadvantage in practice: namely, it's expensive to produce content for them.
I think it depends on how you want the content to look and be interacted with. XML could easily be used to drive both -- that's what it's for.
Even the iPad 'showcase' version of Wired is basically just a bunch of high-quality image files with a small number of lame 'interactive' features.
That has been true of most demonstrations of multi-media for as long as we've had the term. Start out with loads of whiz-bang images and videos, and eventually realize that it's just extra space and it's really adding anything.
I'm betting that my Reuters and BBC apps are all pulling the same info from the same sources as the web versions, it's just about presentation and how the interface works.
Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.
Did you read the whole comment, or just stop when your knickers got into a twist? Because I also said:
Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.
Of course the web isn't going to go away, and of course we shouldn't abandon HTML 5.
What I said is that a native application gives a better user experience than the web. Organizations that have the resources or the inclination will make native apps (for many devices) which allow for that. The web is ubiquitous, and I don't believe that I will be seeing it go away any time soon.
But, I can't tell you how many times I've found myself grumbling about crappy applications that run on the web that are slow and ugly.
I'm saying that an app is simply a better alternative when it is available. Touch screens are an advance in the way we interact with this stuff... it would be moronic to still slavishly stick to the old paradigms; especially of mouse and keyboard.
that's when I started to agree with the folks at Research in Motion: this whole "apps" craze is a fad.
I'll be surprised if that turns out to be true. Personally, I find apps to be a huge improvement over the "everything is a web page" we've been stuck with for the last bunch of years.
Apps and touchscreens are the first time in about 15 years that we've moved forward on user interfaces and interacting with computers. The web has advantages of zero-footprint installs and all that, but I'd hardly call it the best set of user interfaces out there. And, with companies like Microsoft seeing an app-store model in their future, it's hardly going away.
The web wouldn't have succeeded if every site had to write a fscking application to present it's data. You are a typical Apple fanboy that cannot see beyond Jobs's anus. God forbid you grasp the benefits of hyperlinking.
Once again, I stand in awe of the master debaters and wordsmiths posting on Slashdot.
You've clearly run rings around me with your astute points and finely crafted logic.
You honestly believe that when Windows finally gets around to mimicking the iPad that someone will go and provide a "MS Tablet Only Newspaper"?
No, I honestly believe that when Microsoft finally mimics the iPad, this newpaper will be made available for it. Right now, as I understand it, neither enough people are running Windows Mobile 7, nor is the interface nearly good enough to do this.
yet someone has decided to try it out on an Apple product, all of which have a bad rap as being overpriced for what you actually get - the Hardware is never Earth Shattering enough to justify the price
The hardware? No. The software is actually some of the nicest I've used in years -- and that is worth the money. The iPad is some of my first exposure to Apple's stuff beyoind iTunes on my Windows machine -- and, I'm awfully tempted to add an actual Mac to the herd of computers. It's like the old pissing contest between Intel and AMD over processor speed -- if you don't write bloated software that doubles in size every year, you don't need to be constantly doubling hardware needs. It's not like I'm running a web server on the damned thing.
I just learned the other day that in some cases you can't even activate your new iPhone without hooking it up to a computer with your iTunes.
Can't speak to that -- in my experience, my iPods and my iPad all are designed to work with iTunes, and likely the iPhone as well. Since I've been using that for around 10 years, I actually find that convenient since all of my media is already in there. Plug it into the machine, and let iTunes sort out the intial setup -- 5 minutes later, I'm syncing music and movies.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. But the whole "zomg, teh stupid Apple users" is getting kind of old.
It's designed specifically for the typical Apple user.
You know, instead of the usual bitching and moaning about the "typical Apple user" like everybody else on Slashdot, why don't you try to actually think about this instead of just launching into the usual screed? That fact that you've been modded insightful for basically acting like a 4 year old kind of proves my point.
I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the native interface of an iPad application (and, indeed I bet this would be true for an Android device or a Blackberry) is that the interface works the way you expect the interface to work on that platform. The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.
This isn't even about the iPad -- it's about realizing that the 15 years we've spent using the web for everything has led to really crappy user interfaces, all bound to the HTML paradigm. I'm glad to finally see the web being eclipsed by actual applications and interfaces. This will happen on Android, Microsoft, Blackberry, and every new device that comes along.
If three months after this is released, and News Corp releases this for an Android tablet, will we be all saying how hip the Android users are because they can subscribe to the same content? Will it suddenly be cool?
Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing, and recognize that tablets (of all forms) and the like are fundamentally changing the rules and the prevalence of everything being a frigging web page. You don't have to like the iPad, but you should recognize everything you've said will apply to all new touch screen devices as they come on line and available.
Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.
Seriously, dial back the bitching about this being about Apple, and start thinking about this in the broader context of what is going to be happening in the industry over the next bunch of years. Now that touch-screen technology is becoming prevalent, you will see this kind of thing on all platforms.
How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?
Because it will be a native app instead of the web, for one. The web is a reasonable "lowest common denominator", but really, it still sucks for UIs, no matter how many advances we've made.
The difference between a native app and a web-page on this kind of device is massive in terms of how much nicer the native interface is -- in part because it scales up things to be more "touchable" instead of "clickable". I'm glad to finally see a reversal of this trend of "everything as a web page" -- the usability of an app designed for the multi-touch is easily an order of magnitude better than a web page. It's a completely different kind of interface than one you'd do for the web.
They also get Apple as a distribution and billing mechanism. Which I'm sure will also benefit them. However, I don't expect that I'll be making use of the "push" subscriptions, and least of all, for anything from News Corp. There are plenty of *free* news apps that run native on the iPad (BBC, Reuters, and others). Though, I'm sure there will be a fair few people who actually subscribe to this.
I see lots of things on the app store which you could argue is largely the same as the content on a web page. The difference being, with an app instead of a web-page, it's a far better user experience overall.
It's a lot more programmable than even the manufacturer claimed -- you can have macros on any button if you know how to do it. It's served me well for about 8+ years. Once I discovered what all it could really do, it proved to be better than some more expensive remotes.
Of course, now I'm sure Logitech has a whole lot more features for a lot less than I paid.
It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.
Completely talking out of my ass here, so take this with a generous bit of salt...
Japanese culture has the concept of the public vs private face -- Omote (the public face) and ura (the private face). In this case, maybe the photos sort of publicly breech Omote in a way that wouldn't happen with day to day Japanese people.
I'm not saying I agree with all of her claims, and she might in fact be a little loopy. But, there does appear to be a very strong cultural basis for this -- from what has been explained to me, Japanese social interactions are incredibly complex. So much so that most Westerners would probably grossly offend almost everybody in the first few hours.:-P
I have never heard of this one... however, it would appear that we've each cited one of the top ten failed products from McDonald's, along with the GPs reference to McPizza.:-P
Because some bozo starts whining about fragmentation whenever Android is mentioned?
But, it seems to be a valid criticism.
I'm sure I've seen people saying they can't get the latest update because their carrier won't do it, or when they do get an update it breaks things and introduces even further lock down -- completely against the aims of the Android.
From what I've seen, fragmentation within Android is becoming a big deal as companies muck with it. Just how many flavors of the Android OS are there, and how much have the carriers/manufacturers been altering it to make themselves more money?
As an asymmetrically limbed hunchback with a torso tentacled person who likes to save on electricity by keeping the heat down, I must respectfully disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguably, if it works as well as what modern medicine is doing, is it any more bullshit than that is?
I'm not advocating for homeopathy, but from what I understand ... in some cases modern medicine would consider itself doing well if they could reach the levels of relief they get with placebos using actual medicine.
And, as someone I used to know in sales used to say ... it's not a lie if you believe it. :-P Homeopathy may not be perceived as a "lie" by its practitioners.
And you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I'm saying. :-P
I generally prefer to have as much of my information locally so that I can still access it off-line. One of my favorite apps is a reader for wikipedia which keeps the pages you view locally so you can read them offline.
However, I am saying that a native interface to view the content that you pull off the internet (some content, not all content) can simply be a better designed user interface than a web page.
The web as a one-size fits all model where everything needs to be pulled down every time has been around a while. But, it's not the last word, and there is room for improvement.
Have you considered the fact that neither interpretation is correct? Because, it is in fact, neither. Go back and re-read it.
Except, that's not what I said.
Primarily, I was talking about the iPad, not a phone. And, I was talking about accessing content and applications -- not "the internet" or a "web browser".
An iPad-native application to access content is a cleaner interface than simply viewing things in a web browser, specifically because it is optimized for the screen size and the difference in the interface. Because you use the device differently (as you will with any touch screen tablet that isn't trying to reproduce a desktop experience with a keyboard and a mouse).
I also said that moving away from having everything being a web-page is long overdue -- I generally find a lot of applications just simply don't lend themselves to being on the web, but people still insist on rolling out everything as a web page because that's what we've been doing.
Content delivery apps on any tablet gives us the opportunity for something new. In this case, an iPad newspaper -- while I'm not interested in subscription content from News Corp, I do have free news applications from the likes of BBC and Reuters. And, as I stated, reading content on a native app is simply a better designed interface than a web-page.
The web isn't going anywhere, but why should we slavishly stick to everything being a web-page when we have new types of user interfaces and technologies? Having a touch screen changes how you interact with the device, so to me, a native app to access the content makes more sense than sticking to the old web-page model. In this case, some content providers have decided that in addition to their web-pages, they would write a native app which you can also use to access their content. Customers get choice.
Human-Computer interaction can't just halt at the web-page, especially since the first tablets are showing us how we can do it better. However, this gets lost in the sea of Apple bashing and nobody is listening because "zomg I hate Apple". What Apple has done is to actually establish some new ways to interact with a device -- consequently, an app designed to use that has the possibility of being nicer to use than a web-page.
All of the above should be true for any touch-screen tablet. Specifically because it's not a "web browser on a full sized computer screen".
And, indeed, ever since HTML has had the IMG tag. Sites like Flickr and Picasa are essentially hosting services.
I seriously hope Kodak gets smacked down hard over this. Judging by the quality of the last two Kodak printers my wife bought, I say good riddance to them.
This is essentially one of those "with a computer" patents.
Nope. You said that -- I said:
I merely pointed out that a platform-native application is a better user interface than the web, especially on a touchscreen interface which gives you better ways to interact with it. I didn't say anything about paying for content (for or against), merely the way it is presented.
There are plenty of organizations which have made apps for their content, and they still give it away for free. I flatly refuse to pay for online content, but I do find, for example, the free news apps I have a nice format to read it -- of course, my primary news source is still Google news.
Paywalls and charging for content is happening (and going to continue) no matter what I think about it.
I'm more worried about them using it in airports. That will mark the last time I ever fly.
I think it depends on how you want the content to look and be interacted with. XML could easily be used to drive both -- that's what it's for.
That has been true of most demonstrations of multi-media for as long as we've had the term. Start out with loads of whiz-bang images and videos, and eventually realize that it's just extra space and it's really adding anything.
I'm betting that my Reuters and BBC apps are all pulling the same info from the same sources as the web versions, it's just about presentation and how the interface works.
Did you read the whole comment, or just stop when your knickers got into a twist? Because I also said:
Of course the web isn't going to go away, and of course we shouldn't abandon HTML 5.
What I said is that a native application gives a better user experience than the web. Organizations that have the resources or the inclination will make native apps (for many devices) which allow for that. The web is ubiquitous, and I don't believe that I will be seeing it go away any time soon.
But, I can't tell you how many times I've found myself grumbling about crappy applications that run on the web that are slow and ugly.
I'm saying that an app is simply a better alternative when it is available. Touch screens are an advance in the way we interact with this stuff ... it would be moronic to still slavishly stick to the old paradigms; especially of mouse and keyboard.
I'll be surprised if that turns out to be true. Personally, I find apps to be a huge improvement over the "everything is a web page" we've been stuck with for the last bunch of years.
Apps and touchscreens are the first time in about 15 years that we've moved forward on user interfaces and interacting with computers. The web has advantages of zero-footprint installs and all that, but I'd hardly call it the best set of user interfaces out there. And, with companies like Microsoft seeing an app-store model in their future, it's hardly going away.
Once again, I stand in awe of the master debaters and wordsmiths posting on Slashdot.
You've clearly run rings around me with your astute points and finely crafted logic.
No, I honestly believe that when Microsoft finally mimics the iPad, this newpaper will be made available for it. Right now, as I understand it, neither enough people are running Windows Mobile 7, nor is the interface nearly good enough to do this.
The hardware? No. The software is actually some of the nicest I've used in years -- and that is worth the money. The iPad is some of my first exposure to Apple's stuff beyoind iTunes on my Windows machine -- and, I'm awfully tempted to add an actual Mac to the herd of computers. It's like the old pissing contest between Intel and AMD over processor speed -- if you don't write bloated software that doubles in size every year, you don't need to be constantly doubling hardware needs. It's not like I'm running a web server on the damned thing.
Can't speak to that -- in my experience, my iPods and my iPad all are designed to work with iTunes, and likely the iPhone as well. Since I've been using that for around 10 years, I actually find that convenient since all of my media is already in there. Plug it into the machine, and let iTunes sort out the intial setup -- 5 minutes later, I'm syncing music and movies.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. But the whole "zomg, teh stupid Apple users" is getting kind of old.
BBC, Reuters and numerous others have news apps for the iPad that are free, and a fair few have subscription availability.
You can get also crossword apps, again, some free.
You know, instead of the usual bitching and moaning about the "typical Apple user" like everybody else on Slashdot, why don't you try to actually think about this instead of just launching into the usual screed? That fact that you've been modded insightful for basically acting like a 4 year old kind of proves my point.
I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the native interface of an iPad application (and, indeed I bet this would be true for an Android device or a Blackberry) is that the interface works the way you expect the interface to work on that platform. The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.
This isn't even about the iPad -- it's about realizing that the 15 years we've spent using the web for everything has led to really crappy user interfaces, all bound to the HTML paradigm. I'm glad to finally see the web being eclipsed by actual applications and interfaces. This will happen on Android, Microsoft, Blackberry, and every new device that comes along.
If three months after this is released, and News Corp releases this for an Android tablet, will we be all saying how hip the Android users are because they can subscribe to the same content? Will it suddenly be cool?
Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing, and recognize that tablets (of all forms) and the like are fundamentally changing the rules and the prevalence of everything being a frigging web page. You don't have to like the iPad, but you should recognize everything you've said will apply to all new touch screen devices as they come on line and available.
Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.
Seriously, dial back the bitching about this being about Apple, and start thinking about this in the broader context of what is going to be happening in the industry over the next bunch of years. Now that touch-screen technology is becoming prevalent, you will see this kind of thing on all platforms.
Me thinks we've broken the server already. :-P
Because it will be a native app instead of the web, for one. The web is a reasonable "lowest common denominator", but really, it still sucks for UIs, no matter how many advances we've made.
The difference between a native app and a web-page on this kind of device is massive in terms of how much nicer the native interface is -- in part because it scales up things to be more "touchable" instead of "clickable". I'm glad to finally see a reversal of this trend of "everything as a web page" -- the usability of an app designed for the multi-touch is easily an order of magnitude better than a web page. It's a completely different kind of interface than one you'd do for the web.
They also get Apple as a distribution and billing mechanism. Which I'm sure will also benefit them. However, I don't expect that I'll be making use of the "push" subscriptions, and least of all, for anything from News Corp. There are plenty of *free* news apps that run native on the iPad (BBC, Reuters, and others). Though, I'm sure there will be a fair few people who actually subscribe to this.
I see lots of things on the app store which you could argue is largely the same as the content on a web page. The difference being, with an app instead of a web-page, it's a far better user experience overall.
*laugh* Actually, I have one of these.
It's a lot more programmable than even the manufacturer claimed -- you can have macros on any button if you know how to do it. It's served me well for about 8+ years. Once I discovered what all it could really do, it proved to be better than some more expensive remotes.
Of course, now I'm sure Logitech has a whole lot more features for a lot less than I paid.
Cheers
Completely talking out of my ass here, so take this with a generous bit of salt ...
Japanese culture has the concept of the public vs private face -- Omote (the public face) and ura (the private face). In this case, maybe the photos sort of publicly breech Omote in a way that wouldn't happen with day to day Japanese people.
I'm not saying I agree with all of her claims, and she might in fact be a little loopy. But, there does appear to be a very strong cultural basis for this -- from what has been explained to me, Japanese social interactions are incredibly complex. So much so that most Westerners would probably grossly offend almost everybody in the first few hours. :-P
Hmmmm ... pale, sweaty, fat, naked geek in front of a computer doing god knows what.
You have to ask? The mind reels!!
I think that installing a new OS on my cell-phone is on my to do list ... right after getting a rectal exam from the TSA at an airport.
It's just not something I really care to do. I've never put new firmware on my TV remote either. :-P
I have never heard of this one ... however, it would appear that we've each cited one of the top ten failed products from McDonald's, along with the GPs reference to McPizza. :-P
*shudder* That stuff was nasty. Good riddance, I say. (Of course, I've not eaten McD's in over a decade).
Though, I seem to recall having some fond memories of the McDLT when I was much younger.
But, it seems to be a valid criticism.
I'm sure I've seen people saying they can't get the latest update because their carrier won't do it, or when they do get an update it breaks things and introduces even further lock down -- completely against the aims of the Android.
From what I've seen, fragmentation within Android is becoming a big deal as companies muck with it. Just how many flavors of the Android OS are there, and how much have the carriers/manufacturers been altering it to make themselves more money?
Well, it may have driven people back to fine cuisine and real food ... but, that might not be what you meant. ;-)
*laugh* Dude, you're currently moderated as "insightful and troll". That rocks!
I think that pretty much sums up how polarized things are wrt Apple these days. :-P
"fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.” —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
I for one ... actually, never mind.
How's the bell tower these days?