Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.
Life may reproduce, but it's not necessarily a requirement to be defined as life.
As for needs, life doesn't need anything. Life simply exists. We may say that certain conditions are required in order for life to exist and develop, but that is not the same as a "need", is it? Not in the sense the original poster was talking about.
I have no disdain. Surely respecting the risk someone takes depends upon their intentions, too? Perhaps in her case you're right. I'm more concerned with the general trend.
I get what you're saying. But if biological children have a greater bond, then doesn't that imply that parents who adopt don't love their children as much? Or do you think there are some important distinctions between "bond" and "love" in this context? In retrospect, one can see the differences, but if one has only raised an adopted child, then do you really think their relationship is somehow quantitatively less special or advantageous? If you can have biological children, then that's great, and you can embrace it for what it is. But I don't see how it's important enough to risk three of the lives of the people involved in the relationship, especially when there are other people in need who will surely fore-fill each others lives just as much.
Nothing wrong with preferring to have biological children, of course. But it's still a serious question to some of us. Why should a baby that is a result of your DNA more special than someone else's child? I always thought the joys of parenting were to do with human relationships rather than the passing on of one's DNA. Isn't this "something special" really just sentimentality or instinct?
As for the second part, do I really need to dignify that with a response?
Are you one of those people that sees a hat that says "one size fits all" and points out that it's impossible? Because you seem to be missing the point.
The iPad is a more ergonomic design than many of the tablets out there simply because they chose the size and aspect ratio with usability in mind, as opposed to choosing a size and aspect ratio based on what's more marketable.
But iCloud is going to be out by the end of the year. That will make the iTunes argument moot. Every iOS device that ships essentially comes with a free cloud experience. I'm guessing Google already offer such a deal, but the key will be how well it works compared to the iOS experience.
Android isn't a steaming pile. It's just that Apple know how, and are in a better position to, deliver a more polished experience. The thing is, polish, when it comes to computing, is much more important that it is on a car in the yard.
I've seen plenty of iOS devices about, in actual use. It's harder to recall Android devices, of course, since so many look different. Or maybe they just don't get used as much. My friend has an Android device. Why did she go with Android when I know she was considering the iPhone? It was a gift. My other friend also wants an iPhone (he loves the iPod touch) but is put off the unsubsidized price. People aren't necessarily picking Android because they consider it the better product.
Have you considered that there is such a thing a screen size that works well for most people? And that such a design philosophy is more likely to succeed than simply following what appears to be more marketable, such as going with a 16:9 wide screen?
Maybe 10.1" was too big in that case when you take other design considerations into account. Or perhaps the reviewer really was just being pedantic.
I bought a Xoom after it came out, and I am much happier with it than I was with the iPad. This is due to the fact that many of the websites that I visit have not been optimized for the mobile Safari, and either didn't look good, or simply didn't work at all.
I'd rather have what I consider to be a better product, then put pressure on the sites to get with the times. I only occasionally have problems with mobile Safari, and each time it wasn't that important and the site was poor designed and developed to begin with. YMMW, of course.
One of the other things that really bothered me about the iPad was Apple's stranglehold over the App market. Yes, it is well organized and easy to use, but what if there's an app that's not there, wasn't accepted into the store for one of their many thousands of reasons they block useful apps, but the Dev is still willing to sell it? With Apple, there's no way to do this without jailbreaking your iDevice, installing Cydia, voiding your warranty, etc. With Android, you can get the app from anywhere, and easily install it without going through a store or having to break the warranty.
What if a developer makes an app you want, but they've decide only to develop for iOS? I agree that such things can be a problem, but it's still a what-if scenario and you can come up all sorts of those. That's where the web comes in, I guess.
To me, the iPad was just an over-sized iPod Touch.
Yet, in effect, aren't the Android tablets often just large Android phones? My understanding is that apps scale up much more gracefully than the iPad's jaggedly pixel enlarging, but that there isn't as much of a design difference to the interface as can be made between an iPhone and iPad under iOS, where there interface can be completely different.
It doesn't feel like a computing device at all. You can't even use it as a file storage device without downloading special apps.
Feels like a computing device to me. As for file storage, that doesn't bother me when USB flash drives are so small and cheap.
The Xoom feels much more like an actual computing device. I can navigate its files and folders easily.
The thing is, I love the fact that I no longer have to deal with files and folders anymore. I miss it as much as I miss manual chokes in old cars.
If I want a highly mobile device that is more hacker friendly, then I’d go with a 11” Macbook Air -- hardware keyboard, higher-res screen, more ports, etc.
One reviewer once said that the Blackberry pad was too small at 7" and then turned around and said another pad (I don't think it was the Tab, maybe the Zoom) was too large at 10.1".
Have you considered that Apple did a bit a research when it came to selecting the screen size of the iPad and that other manufactures may simply be guessing or trying to offer something different (such as a smaller screen) or going with what is more marketable (16:9 aspect ratio) rather than what may be the most practical?
That's not a failure. That's a design decision. I doubt there is a big demand at the moment for the type of voice recognition you're talking about, so it's silly for Apple to invest so much time in that area when there's still a lot of work to be done in more important areas.
Who does have flawless voice recognition incorporated into a smartphone?
Yeah, and they all suffer from the same problem: User must know about it, install it (if possible), create an account, and know enough people with a compatible client to make it worth while. Many people just won't bother. If iMessage takes off, it will be in large part due to it working right out of the box with no set-up required, like SMS.
When I think of Apple, I don't think of the Newton. Anything produced by Apple while Jobs wasn't there shouldn't be counted towards Apple's product philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Why assume a material existence, for that matter?
What do you mean by that, exactly?
The first sentence of Wikipedia says:
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.
Life may reproduce, but it's not necessarily a requirement to be defined as life.
As for needs, life doesn't need anything. Life simply exists. We may say that certain conditions are required in order for life to exist and develop, but that is not the same as a "need", is it? Not in the sense the original poster was talking about.
I have no disdain. Surely respecting the risk someone takes depends upon their intentions, too? Perhaps in her case you're right. I'm more concerned with the general trend.
I get what you're saying. But if biological children have a greater bond, then doesn't that imply that parents who adopt don't love their children as much? Or do you think there are some important distinctions between "bond" and "love" in this context? In retrospect, one can see the differences, but if one has only raised an adopted child, then do you really think their relationship is somehow quantitatively less special or advantageous? If you can have biological children, then that's great, and you can embrace it for what it is. But I don't see how it's important enough to risk three of the lives of the people involved in the relationship, especially when there are other people in need who will surely fore-fill each others lives just as much.
Which definition is that? And I still don't see why it's a "need". I am talking more philosophically, BTW.
Nothing wrong with preferring to have biological children, of course. But it's still a serious question to some of us. Why should a baby that is a result of your DNA more special than someone else's child? I always thought the joys of parenting were to do with human relationships rather than the passing on of one's DNA. Isn't this "something special" really just sentimentality or instinct?
As for the second part, do I really need to dignify that with a response?
I doubt she's doing it as a science project.
Since when is having children a need?
Of course! Nothing should stand in the way of The Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge!
Are you one of those people that sees a hat that says "one size fits all" and points out that it's impossible? Because you seem to be missing the point.
The iPad is a more ergonomic design than many of the tablets out there simply because they chose the size and aspect ratio with usability in mind, as opposed to choosing a size and aspect ratio based on what's more marketable.
Never heard of ergonomics?
But iCloud is going to be out by the end of the year. That will make the iTunes argument moot. Every iOS device that ships essentially comes with a free cloud experience. I'm guessing Google already offer such a deal, but the key will be how well it works compared to the iOS experience.
Android isn't a steaming pile. It's just that Apple know how, and are in a better position to, deliver a more polished experience. The thing is, polish, when it comes to computing, is much more important that it is on a car in the yard.
I've seen plenty of iOS devices about, in actual use. It's harder to recall Android devices, of course, since so many look different. Or maybe they just don't get used as much. My friend has an Android device. Why did she go with Android when I know she was considering the iPhone? It was a gift. My other friend also wants an iPhone (he loves the iPod touch) but is put off the unsubsidized price. People aren't necessarily picking Android because they consider it the better product.
Have you considered that there is such a thing a screen size that works well for most people? And that such a design philosophy is more likely to succeed than simply following what appears to be more marketable, such as going with a 16:9 wide screen?
Maybe 10.1" was too big in that case when you take other design considerations into account. Or perhaps the reviewer really was just being pedantic.
But doing stuff is the experience.
What are these things I should be dreaming about?
I bought a Xoom after it came out, and I am much happier with it than I was with the iPad. This is due to the fact that many of the websites that I visit have not been optimized for the mobile Safari, and either didn't look good, or simply didn't work at all.
I'd rather have what I consider to be a better product, then put pressure on the sites to get with the times. I only occasionally have problems with mobile Safari, and each time it wasn't that important and the site was poor designed and developed to begin with. YMMW, of course.
One of the other things that really bothered me about the iPad was Apple's stranglehold over the App market. Yes, it is well organized and easy to use, but what if there's an app that's not there, wasn't accepted into the store for one of their many thousands of reasons they block useful apps, but the Dev is still willing to sell it? With Apple, there's no way to do this without jailbreaking your iDevice, installing Cydia, voiding your warranty, etc. With Android, you can get the app from anywhere, and easily install it without going through a store or having to break the warranty.
What if a developer makes an app you want, but they've decide only to develop for iOS? I agree that such things can be a problem, but it's still a what-if scenario and you can come up all sorts of those. That's where the web comes in, I guess.
To me, the iPad was just an over-sized iPod Touch.
Yet, in effect, aren't the Android tablets often just large Android phones? My understanding is that apps scale up much more gracefully than the iPad's jaggedly pixel enlarging, but that there isn't as much of a design difference to the interface as can be made between an iPhone and iPad under iOS, where there interface can be completely different.
It doesn't feel like a computing device at all. You can't even use it as a file storage device without downloading special apps.
Feels like a computing device to me. As for file storage, that doesn't bother me when USB flash drives are so small and cheap.
The Xoom feels much more like an actual computing device. I can navigate its files and folders easily.
The thing is, I love the fact that I no longer have to deal with files and folders anymore. I miss it as much as I miss manual chokes in old cars.
If I want a highly mobile device that is more hacker friendly, then I’d go with a 11” Macbook Air -- hardware keyboard, higher-res screen, more ports, etc.
One reviewer once said that the Blackberry pad was too small at 7" and then turned around and said another pad (I don't think it was the Tab, maybe the Zoom) was too large at 10.1".
Have you considered that Apple did a bit a research when it came to selecting the screen size of the iPad and that other manufactures may simply be guessing or trying to offer something different (such as a smaller screen) or going with what is more marketable (16:9 aspect ratio) rather than what may be the most practical?
The thing is, at the moment, why would anyone want an Android experience except for diehard Android geeks?
No need to get all sarcastic. Although I'm still wondering why you needed MobileMe.
Woz was talking about voice commands, not an input method. Woz hasn't had much input into Apple's design decisions in quite some time, anyway.
That's not a failure. That's a design decision. I doubt there is a big demand at the moment for the type of voice recognition you're talking about, so it's silly for Apple to invest so much time in that area when there's still a lot of work to be done in more important areas.
Who does have flawless voice recognition incorporated into a smartphone?
What kind of work is that?
Yeah, and they all suffer from the same problem: User must know about it, install it (if possible), create an account, and know enough people with a compatible client to make it worth while. Many people just won't bother. If iMessage takes off, it will be in large part due to it working right out of the box with no set-up required, like SMS.
When I think of Apple, I don't think of the Newton. Anything produced by Apple while Jobs wasn't there shouldn't be counted towards Apple's product philosophy.
How has the current iOS voice recognition failed?