Because it think that they had an ethical obligation to try such a demonstration first, precisely because they didn't have the hindsight to see exactly what was going on at the time.
And given how much forest we are cutting down and how much of the ocean's ecosystem we are disrupting, we might have to be more careful about how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the "dropping the nukes saved lives" idea. It's hind-sight speculation. Why didn't they at least try dropping them on a naval fleet first? If it didn't work, then perhaps move on to dropping them on a civilian population.
So because some people have made mistakes or pushed propaganda, the whole theory must be a scam? But people on the other side of the argument have done similar things, too.
But I have consumer choice. I can buy a non-Apple device if I ever find Apple's system too restrictive. Please don't assume what my priorities are when it comes to computer systems.
I think it looks nice, but I wonder how usable it is. It's hard to tell from a short video. It does seem like they have sacrificed a bit of functionality for the sake of being stylish. Such as the giant words at the top that get cropped as you scroll sideways, yet don't really tell you which page you're on. It's looks as if they were trying to use the title as a scroll indicator, which would have been stylish and functional, but it doesn't seem to work well.
Hopefully it turns out to be a good device, because MS really needs one.
What you're really asking for is the ability for applications to load quickly and remember their previous state. Because I don't see how there is enough screen space to literally do two things at once. The exception here, of course, is for music and voice apps etc.
You want what's unlikely to succeed. Traditional desktop OSs don't work well on a decent sized touchscreen-only tablet. That is what most people want. Along with an OS that was specifically designed for the product. Anything that runs Windows 7 will either be a usability joke because of the hacked interface to fit a small screen and the lack of power to do basic things, or unpractical because it will be large enough to provide the full power of a laptop system including a large screen for a mediocre desktop experience (don't forget your stylus and to work on those arm muscles).
Actually, it's only 235KB. You must be looking at the uncompressed size. That's still a lot, though. They could have saved it as a JPEG at level 80 in Photoshop and it would only have been 42KB. Even at maximum quality it would only have been 100KB. Sure, no alpha channel, but it sits on a solid background.
Why assume more muscle and the option to put any OS on it is in any way valuable? That may be valuable to you, but to many it offers nothing at all. And how do you know how much muscle it has? It has a custom chip, so clock cycles aren't necessarily a very good comparison.
Using a modified version of the iPhone OS is exactly what Jobs has done right. Putting a full desktop OS into a tablet is where everyone has been going wrong.
They're not going out of their way, they're simply not offering an alternative. They see the iPod and iTunes as part of the same package and design it that way. It's not like they're forcing people to use iPods with their computers. It's this kind of product integration that makes me fervently pro-Apple;)
I have one of his books on my shelf, along with other neurology books. One day, we may have such a great understanding of the mechanisms underlying the brain that we can predict what anyone will do, etc.
But that's besides the point.
You're still making assumptions about what consciousness is. Life and consciousness were still far from having complete explanations the last time I checked. Even the definitions of what they are is far from being agreed upon. Statements supporting either side of the life after death debate are speculative.
I don't believe in a soul or an afterlife, BTW. But I can't deny the possibility.
Yeah, I do have to ask, because it works fine for me. So well that I have never considered using anything else. But then again, I am running it under OS X.
Why, oh why, won't Apple let me push music to it like every other, non-Apple, media player that we own?
Because most people don't want to do it that way and Apple doesn't want to spend the extra time supporting a feature that only a few nerds are going to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it think that they had an ethical obligation to try such a demonstration first, precisely because they didn't have the hindsight to see exactly what was going on at the time.
Bad in what way? I use it all the time for all sorts of files and have found it simple, fast, and reliable.
What makes sense about politicians deciding on scientific matters?
And given how much forest we are cutting down and how much of the ocean's ecosystem we are disrupting, we might have to be more careful about how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the "dropping the nukes saved lives" idea. It's hind-sight speculation. Why didn't they at least try dropping them on a naval fleet first? If it didn't work, then perhaps move on to dropping them on a civilian population.
So because some people have made mistakes or pushed propaganda, the whole theory must be a scam? But people on the other side of the argument have done similar things, too.
But what he said was still true. It's just context dependent, and that was the point.
But I have consumer choice. I can buy a non-Apple device if I ever find Apple's system too restrictive. Please don't assume what my priorities are when it comes to computer systems.
Well, except that file systems aren't products, but merely features of a product.
I think it looks nice, but I wonder how usable it is. It's hard to tell from a short video. It does seem like they have sacrificed a bit of functionality for the sake of being stylish. Such as the giant words at the top that get cropped as you scroll sideways, yet don't really tell you which page you're on. It's looks as if they were trying to use the title as a scroll indicator, which would have been stylish and functional, but it doesn't seem to work well.
Hopefully it turns out to be a good device, because MS really needs one.
What you're really asking for is the ability for applications to load quickly and remember their previous state. Because I don't see how there is enough screen space to literally do two things at once. The exception here, of course, is for music and voice apps etc.
You want what's unlikely to succeed. Traditional desktop OSs don't work well on a decent sized touchscreen-only tablet. That is what most people want. Along with an OS that was specifically designed for the product. Anything that runs Windows 7 will either be a usability joke because of the hacked interface to fit a small screen and the lack of power to do basic things, or unpractical because it will be large enough to provide the full power of a laptop system including a large screen for a mediocre desktop experience (don't forget your stylus and to work on those arm muscles).
Actually, it's only 235KB. You must be looking at the uncompressed size. That's still a lot, though. They could have saved it as a JPEG at level 80 in Photoshop and it would only have been 42KB. Even at maximum quality it would only have been 100KB. Sure, no alpha channel, but it sits on a solid background.
Why assume more muscle and the option to put any OS on it is in any way valuable? That may be valuable to you, but to many it offers nothing at all. And how do you know how much muscle it has? It has a custom chip, so clock cycles aren't necessarily a very good comparison.
Using a modified version of the iPhone OS is exactly what Jobs has done right. Putting a full desktop OS into a tablet is where everyone has been going wrong.
But are they trying to stop other manufacturers from making iTunes-like software that works with their own or other non-Apple devices?
Are you saying in order for software to be considered innovative, it has to be distributed via some new mechanism?
Yeah, most of them probably wouldn't want to do it the Windows way if they had a chance to get used to a Mac ;)
Out of curiosity, do you know how the Windows version of Safari does compared to the Windows version of iTunes?
They're not going out of their way, they're simply not offering an alternative. They see the iPod and iTunes as part of the same package and design it that way. It's not like they're forcing people to use iPods with their computers. It's this kind of product integration that makes me fervently pro-Apple ;)
I have one of his books on my shelf, along with other neurology books. One day, we may have such a great understanding of the mechanisms underlying the brain that we can predict what anyone will do, etc.
But that's besides the point.
You're still making assumptions about what consciousness is. Life and consciousness were still far from having complete explanations the last time I checked. Even the definitions of what they are is far from being agreed upon. Statements supporting either side of the life after death debate are speculative.
I don't believe in a soul or an afterlife, BTW. But I can't deny the possibility.
Yeah, I do have to ask, because it works fine for me. So well that I have never considered using anything else. But then again, I am running it under OS X.
Finally, that link says nothing about what software the Courier will run, nor how it will improve the interface.
Exactly. Until they give a proper demo of the end software that will run on the Courier, it's had to say how innovative it really is.
Why, oh why, won't Apple let me push music to it like every other, non-Apple, media player that we own?
Because most people don't want to do it that way and Apple doesn't want to spend the extra time supporting a feature that only a few nerds are going to use.
iTunes works fine for me, BTW.
You talk about how horrible iTunes is, but you don't even say why.