I kinda hear that, about size, but I agree with the others who say that until you've tried to lug around a great big tablet, you don't realize the advantage of the smaller size. Pinch-to-zoom can take you a long way with devices like this.
That said, yeah, I've had a Surface Pro for a while and I've never really said, "Whoah, I gotta fire up Photoshop and try out that pen!" So maybe the screen does want to be just a little bit bigger for that.
Sounds like the Surface Pro meets all of your requirements, except maybe the screen size. As I understand it, the digitizer isn't as good as a full Wacom tablet, but the latest drivers make it good enough for most art purposes.
If you're not charging people for your images, then leeches aren't stealing anything.
Except your bandwidth. Image leeches typically do things like linking your images to their MySpace page, or using them as the background image for some other website full of ad spam links, so you end up paying for their site. It wouldn't be so bad if they just "stole" your images by downloading them and using them themselves. The problem is that they don't download your images.
Prototypes of a modern calculator could be coded in Java-Script or Dart and presented on a browser.
I seriously question whether JavaScript's internal number representation would be accurate enough to implement a calculator for use in education. All numbers in JavaScript are represented as double-precision floats, which IMHO are not going to be accurate enough for engineering or science use (except, perhaps, with some very fancy footwork on the part of the developer).
Also, my understanding is that phones, tablets and the like are not allowed in classrooms precisely because their broad programmability makes it easy for students to cheat. How hard would it be for a student to flip back and forth between an app that looks like a calculator and a browser window with all the answers in it? Hardware calculators offer educators some assurance that this isn't happening.
Errr... the article you cite explicitly points out that the errors were the fault of the "publisher" of this particular $0.99 public domain ebook, and it was not the result of any policy or "gatekeeping" on the part of Nook or Barnes & Noble.
Given that he has clearly and proudly violated the National Security Act, he is already liable for the death sentence.
No, he is not. There are various offenses under the National Security Act, and the ones of which Snowden is being accused are not eligible for the death penalty.
If that level is not sufficient, then one needs to question whether the concept of herd immunity is valid.
You're confusing statistical herd immunity with factual herd immunity. If 90% of people in the United States have herd immunity, but a particular community of 2,000 people has only a 10% vaccination rate, then there is no herd immunity within that community.
People who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, for instance because they're babies and too young to get the vaccine yet, or they have compromised immune systems (for one reason or another). People in these groups have to rely on otherwise healthy people to do the right thing and get vaccinated.
So where did Der Spiegel get these documents? On Friday, Edward Snowden accused the US government of intentionally leaking documents to The Independent that were potentially damaging, in an effort to discredit the responsible reporting being done by The Guardian and the Washington Post. He said he had never worked with nor even spoken to anyone at The Independent. Is the same thing happening here?
Not always, no. There are famous quotes by people from Henry Ford to Gene Roddenberry that all come down to "people don't know what they want". And it's true, if MS asked what people wanted, 90% would say XP, solely because they're used to it.
This is actually something I think about often. Steve Jobs' "genius" was that he always told people what they wanted, then gave it to them.
Microsoft, on the other hand, always CLAIMS to make changes because "that's what people want." They do endless research to see what buttons people click after they click this or that button, and then they make those buttons bigger so they're easier to click. They arrange the Office Ribbon based on what they see people doing. Everything, EVERYTHING is based on research, both through direct surveys and blind feedback from their software running in the wild......and yet, when they make the changes, most people seem to respond negatively. But Microsoft won't revise its changes -- or allow a smart, Steve Jobs-like human to make the decisions -- because they have all this research, so they "know" what people want. "You say you hate this? Well you're wrong, you don't hate it, and I can prove it."
TL;DR Microsoft actually seems hamstrung by its own design methodology. It designs by committee, vote, and statistical study, rather than by inspiration -- and its slavish adherence to those methods means it has a hard time recovering from its own mistakes.
Actually, the Start Button does include one benefit: you can right click it to get the system administrator's menu, which has a bunch of useful stuff on it. The same menu was available in Windows 8, but you had to know it was there because there was no icon to let you know about it, and there was no way to activate it on a touchscreen.
I know it's not exactly what you want, but you can still specify a default app for files, same as you always could.
Actually, it's not quite the same as you always could. Unless you explicitly right-click a file and choose "Open with...", double-clicking an unregistered file type gets you a new, Metro-ized "Choose a program" menu that doesn't fit with the rest of the desktop look and feel and it requires more clicks to get the job done.
At least 8.1 lets you use your desktop wallpaper for the start screen background, so the transition isn't as jarring.
I bought this argument until I started using it. Then I realized that I always run with my main windows maximized or tiled so that I never actually even see the desktop most of the time. So the transition is every bit as jarring, because now when I hit the Windows key I see something that looks like my desktop but none of my stuff is on it.
But seriously..don't come here...I like it the way it is and don't want everyone messing it up with their bad attitudes.
Oh, the irony.
How about this one: All these people who have been fleeing San Francisco because of the ridiculously high rents are just doing to Oakland what they've been bitching about "rich yuppies" doing to San Francisco for years. Meanwhile, Oakland is a city with a long history, was a pivotal hub of the civil rights movement, has traditionally been home to generations of families (mostly black), and now all of the people who have called the East Bay their home for decades are being pushed out because all of these young, affluent white twentysomethings are moving there and pushing the locals out. Many of them just moved here a few years ago and have no real connection to Oakland or the Bay Area in general (other than writing articles and blog posts about how AMAZING the Oakland arts scene is) and their so-called cultural renaissance is really just classic market-driven gentrification, displacing the culture that was already there in favor of something totally manufactured and transient. The New Oaklanders will all move away eventually, leaving nothing behind but a bunch of rusty steel sculptures and higher rents. But call me cynical.
This is a niche product that will never ramp to significant volume. You heard it here first.
Its "niche," though, is people who are using feature phones and are thinking about buying their first smartphone. For these people, the main draw of a smartphone is being able to access the web. Firefox OS delivers that at a price point of $80, or even less with carrier subsidies. It won't ramp to a significant volume in rich countries, but there is a much larger "significant volume" of customers in places like China, India, Brazil, Latin America, etc. So you never know.
Pretty good question. My understanding is they bought it for their Smart TVs.
This is actually a pretty good idea. I have one of their Smart TVs, and the UI is ugly, inconsistent, and a little buggy. LG might be a decent hardware company, but they lack Apple's knack for building decent UIs. It makes sense to me for them to pay for an OS where somebody has already done a lot of the thinking about how things ought to work.
As for why they can't use it for smartphones, too, I think the reasons are twofold: 1.) Although it was based on "the web," WebOS had more proprietary/nonstandard stuff in it than Firefox OS does, which makes it harder for it to gain momentum. That's not so much of a problem in the Smart TV world, where pretty much nothing has any momentum yet. 2.) The perception is that WebOS has already failed as a smartphone OS. For LG to put another smartphone product out now based on the same "failed OS" would be a pretty big gamble.
Sorry but morales aside. Why not harvest organs like this that can't be harvested from volunteers (without them dying). Go China.
There are Falun Gong members who hand out leaflets about this issue in Chinatown in San Francisco just about every day.
According to them, the Chinese doesn't just harvest organs from dead prisoners. They also harvest them from live prisoners, supposedly. As in, they are alive when the surgery takes place. After that, they are dead prisoners. Execution by organ harvesting.
I don't know how true all of that is, but then again, nobody does. There have been a few investigations by outside officials, some of whom have made some very damning statements. But other people refute those statements, and mostly China keeps information about executions and alleged organ harvesting very secret.
The brochure I have on my desk quotes Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican from Florida, as saying: "Falun Gong adherents have been systematically arrested, tortured, sent to forced labor camps for 're-education,' placed in mental institutions for brainwashing, and subjected to organ harvesting."
Again, I have done no actual investigation into any of this myself, I mention it only to suggest that it ain't so cut and dried as "they take the organs out of dead prisoners."
It kills me how people complain about how in a hurry they are and how they never have the time to do anything, and they never connect it with the fact that they're always gaming.
Haven't you heard? Gamifying a thing always makes it better.
He told me that, in effect, to give third parties access to the same APIs that Google's YouTube apps use would be akin to disclosing how Google's servers are set up, deep details of how its ad infrastructure works, and this kind of thing. Google doesn't give out that information to anybody.
All third party YouTube apps use the HTML5 API -- all but Microsoft's, which is why Microsoft's was blocked. BlackBerry's YouTube app uses the HTML5 API. very smart TV and every Blu-Ray player that ships with a YouTube streaming feature uses the HTML5 API. PlayStation, you name it. It's not like you can't build a commercial quality YouTube app using the HTML5 API, because everybody else is doing it.
Also, consider that the first version of Microsoft's native YouTube app had a download button that allowed you to save any video to your device. Anybody who's ever used YouTube knows that's one of the biggest no-nos, and that YouTube is intended to be a streaming service ONLY. So why did Microsoft build that feature into its app if it was trying to play by the rules?
Probable answer: This whole thing has been Microsoft spoiling for attention and trying cast negative aspersions on Google, from the very beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not leeching your images, it's called hot-linking. What they're leeching is your bandwidth, not your images.
Whatever, but if you reread the GP, what you call hot-linking is clearly what he's talking about.
I kinda hear that, about size, but I agree with the others who say that until you've tried to lug around a great big tablet, you don't realize the advantage of the smaller size. Pinch-to-zoom can take you a long way with devices like this.
That said, yeah, I've had a Surface Pro for a while and I've never really said, "Whoah, I gotta fire up Photoshop and try out that pen!" So maybe the screen does want to be just a little bit bigger for that.
Sounds like the Surface Pro meets all of your requirements, except maybe the screen size. As I understand it, the digitizer isn't as good as a full Wacom tablet, but the latest drivers make it good enough for most art purposes.
If you're not charging people for your images, then leeches aren't stealing anything.
Except your bandwidth. Image leeches typically do things like linking your images to their MySpace page, or using them as the background image for some other website full of ad spam links, so you end up paying for their site. It wouldn't be so bad if they just "stole" your images by downloading them and using them themselves. The problem is that they don't download your images.
Prototypes of a modern calculator could be coded in Java-Script or Dart and presented
on a browser.
I seriously question whether JavaScript's internal number representation would be accurate enough to implement a calculator for use in education. All numbers in JavaScript are represented as double-precision floats, which IMHO are not going to be accurate enough for engineering or science use (except, perhaps, with some very fancy footwork on the part of the developer).
Also, my understanding is that phones, tablets and the like are not allowed in classrooms precisely because their broad programmability makes it easy for students to cheat. How hard would it be for a student to flip back and forth between an app that looks like a calculator and a browser window with all the answers in it? Hardware calculators offer educators some assurance that this isn't happening.
Errr... the article you cite explicitly points out that the errors were the fault of the "publisher" of this particular $0.99 public domain ebook, and it was not the result of any policy or "gatekeeping" on the part of Nook or Barnes & Noble.
Given that he has clearly and proudly violated the National Security Act, he is already liable for the death sentence.
No, he is not. There are various offenses under the National Security Act, and the ones of which Snowden is being accused are not eligible for the death penalty.
We have 90%+ herd immunity on measles.
If that level is not sufficient, then one needs to question whether the concept of herd immunity is valid.
You're confusing statistical herd immunity with factual herd immunity. If 90% of people in the United States have herd immunity, but a particular community of 2,000 people has only a 10% vaccination rate, then there is no herd immunity within that community.
If not, then . . . who cares?
People who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, for instance because they're babies and too young to get the vaccine yet, or they have compromised immune systems (for one reason or another). People in these groups have to rely on otherwise healthy people to do the right thing and get vaccinated.
Admittedly that's about the only thing I've been able to use my 6 digit UID for...because I am relatively new here.
Yeah, you must be. ;-)
So where did Der Spiegel get these documents? On Friday, Edward Snowden accused the US government of intentionally leaking documents to The Independent that were potentially damaging, in an effort to discredit the responsible reporting being done by The Guardian and the Washington Post. He said he had never worked with nor even spoken to anyone at The Independent. Is the same thing happening here?
Bad Grammar Nazi loses war: http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=thusly
poor CLI integration (please just build-in Bash)
Windows PowerShell is arguably a superior CLI to Bash.
Not always, no. There are famous quotes by people from Henry Ford to Gene Roddenberry that all come down to "people don't know what they want". And it's true, if MS asked what people wanted, 90% would say XP, solely because they're used to it.
This is actually something I think about often. Steve Jobs' "genius" was that he always told people what they wanted, then gave it to them.
Microsoft, on the other hand, always CLAIMS to make changes because "that's what people want." They do endless research to see what buttons people click after they click this or that button, and then they make those buttons bigger so they're easier to click. They arrange the Office Ribbon based on what they see people doing. Everything, EVERYTHING is based on research, both through direct surveys and blind feedback from their software running in the wild... ...and yet, when they make the changes, most people seem to respond negatively. But Microsoft won't revise its changes -- or allow a smart, Steve Jobs-like human to make the decisions -- because they have all this research, so they "know" what people want. "You say you hate this? Well you're wrong, you don't hate it, and I can prove it."
TL;DR Microsoft actually seems hamstrung by its own design methodology. It designs by committee, vote, and statistical study, rather than by inspiration -- and its slavish adherence to those methods means it has a hard time recovering from its own mistakes.
Actually, the Start Button does include one benefit: you can right click it to get the system administrator's menu, which has a bunch of useful stuff on it. The same menu was available in Windows 8, but you had to know it was there because there was no icon to let you know about it, and there was no way to activate it on a touchscreen.
I know it's not exactly what you want, but you can still specify a default app for files, same as you always could.
Actually, it's not quite the same as you always could. Unless you explicitly right-click a file and choose "Open with...", double-clicking an unregistered file type gets you a new, Metro-ized "Choose a program" menu that doesn't fit with the rest of the desktop look and feel and it requires more clicks to get the job done.
At least 8.1 lets you use your desktop wallpaper for the start screen background, so the transition isn't as jarring.
I bought this argument until I started using it. Then I realized that I always run with my main windows maximized or tiled so that I never actually even see the desktop most of the time. So the transition is every bit as jarring, because now when I hit the Windows key I see something that looks like my desktop but none of my stuff is on it.
You're discussing the criminality of saying something, when the issue here is strictly a civil one.
Errrr... could you please give me an example of when speech might be considered a criminal matter in the United States?
But seriously..don't come here...I like it the way it is and don't want everyone messing it up with their bad attitudes.
Oh, the irony.
How about this one: All these people who have been fleeing San Francisco because of the ridiculously high rents are just doing to Oakland what they've been bitching about "rich yuppies" doing to San Francisco for years. Meanwhile, Oakland is a city with a long history, was a pivotal hub of the civil rights movement, has traditionally been home to generations of families (mostly black), and now all of the people who have called the East Bay their home for decades are being pushed out because all of these young, affluent white twentysomethings are moving there and pushing the locals out. Many of them just moved here a few years ago and have no real connection to Oakland or the Bay Area in general (other than writing articles and blog posts about how AMAZING the Oakland arts scene is) and their so-called cultural renaissance is really just classic market-driven gentrification, displacing the culture that was already there in favor of something totally manufactured and transient. The New Oaklanders will all move away eventually, leaving nothing behind but a bunch of rusty steel sculptures and higher rents. But call me cynical.
This is a niche product that will never ramp to significant volume. You heard it here first.
Its "niche," though, is people who are using feature phones and are thinking about buying their first smartphone. For these people, the main draw of a smartphone is being able to access the web. Firefox OS delivers that at a price point of $80, or even less with carrier subsidies. It won't ramp to a significant volume in rich countries, but there is a much larger "significant volume" of customers in places like China, India, Brazil, Latin America, etc. So you never know.
Pretty good question. My understanding is they bought it for their Smart TVs.
This is actually a pretty good idea. I have one of their Smart TVs, and the UI is ugly, inconsistent, and a little buggy. LG might be a decent hardware company, but they lack Apple's knack for building decent UIs. It makes sense to me for them to pay for an OS where somebody has already done a lot of the thinking about how things ought to work.
As for why they can't use it for smartphones, too, I think the reasons are twofold: 1.) Although it was based on "the web," WebOS had more proprietary/nonstandard stuff in it than Firefox OS does, which makes it harder for it to gain momentum. That's not so much of a problem in the Smart TV world, where pretty much nothing has any momentum yet. 2.) The perception is that WebOS has already failed as a smartphone OS. For LG to put another smartphone product out now based on the same "failed OS" would be a pretty big gamble.
No one is saying to harvest the organs while they're still alive [youtube.com] ...
You are wrong. Some people do allege that.
Sorry but morales aside. Why not harvest organs like this that can't be harvested from volunteers (without them dying). Go China.
There are Falun Gong members who hand out leaflets about this issue in Chinatown in San Francisco just about every day.
According to them, the Chinese doesn't just harvest organs from dead prisoners. They also harvest them from live prisoners, supposedly. As in, they are alive when the surgery takes place. After that, they are dead prisoners. Execution by organ harvesting.
I don't know how true all of that is, but then again, nobody does. There have been a few investigations by outside officials, some of whom have made some very damning statements. But other people refute those statements, and mostly China keeps information about executions and alleged organ harvesting very secret.
The brochure I have on my desk quotes Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican from Florida, as saying: "Falun Gong adherents have been systematically arrested, tortured, sent to forced labor camps for 're-education,' placed in mental institutions for brainwashing, and subjected to organ harvesting."
Again, I have done no actual investigation into any of this myself, I mention it only to suggest that it ain't so cut and dried as "they take the organs out of dead prisoners."
It kills me how people complain about how in a hurry they are and how they never have the time to do anything, and they never connect it with the fact that they're always gaming.
Haven't you heard? Gamifying a thing always makes it better.
I spoke to a YouTube employee about this.
He told me that, in effect, to give third parties access to the same APIs that Google's YouTube apps use would be akin to disclosing how Google's servers are set up, deep details of how its ad infrastructure works, and this kind of thing. Google doesn't give out that information to anybody.
All third party YouTube apps use the HTML5 API -- all but Microsoft's, which is why Microsoft's was blocked. BlackBerry's YouTube app uses the HTML5 API. very smart TV and every Blu-Ray player that ships with a YouTube streaming feature uses the HTML5 API. PlayStation, you name it. It's not like you can't build a commercial quality YouTube app using the HTML5 API, because everybody else is doing it.
Also, consider that the first version of Microsoft's native YouTube app had a download button that allowed you to save any video to your device. Anybody who's ever used YouTube knows that's one of the biggest no-nos, and that YouTube is intended to be a streaming service ONLY. So why did Microsoft build that feature into its app if it was trying to play by the rules?
Probable answer: This whole thing has been Microsoft spoiling for attention and trying cast negative aspersions on Google, from the very beginning.