It's not, except for the insane or people who aren't able or willing to use a reasonable imaging and app distribution system.
It appears that people who didn't RTFA or who work at tiny tiny sites are criticizing these guys without knowing what the hell they're talking about.
No one does workstation backups because it's costly, risky, inefficient, and generally doesn't work. The only way to make it work is to say "put all the documents you need to backup here" and here is better off being a network drive anyway.
Primarily because parallel programming(taking advantage of multiple cores) is substantially more complex and difficult than the more traditional single core variety. It's not a matter of just flipping a switch.
Add to that the fact that multicore systems have only really become common over the last few years and most game engines in current games were begun well before this was the case. At
that time dedicating serious resources to multicore was probably considered a waste.
It kind of looks like from the article that it's designed to be used to restrict access to content based on the wishes of the publisher, not of third parties like governments.
Of course it could be used to censor content, but google(and for that matter the governments themselves) can do that anyway. It's not like China can't(and doesn't) block access to certain web locations it doesn't want its citizens to see. It doesn't stop back channel distribution of course, but neither does this.
I feel the need to respond to this again, as I have inadvertently let this become a personal attack which wasn't my intention.
It's possible that Filbuste wasn't responding to the original post in the way I believe he was. It's possible he interpreted the original post as 24 hour monitoring which isn't possible. I meant my post to be more general and I apologize.
Actually I don't coddle my kid, nor do I suggest people do that.
The original criticism wasn't saying that you should spy on your kids 24 hours a day(that's daft), but that you should take responsibility for what they watch on tv and view on the internet. That's basic supervision, not coddling. Then Filbuste said that he couldn't provide that basic level of supervision for his two non disabled kids due to the time it takes to focus on the disabled ones. There is no excuse for being a shitty parent. When you have a disabled kid it's hard, really hard, but it doesn't remove your responsibility to adequately parent your other children.
Parenting is hard work. There's a lot of hard decisions, a lot of mistakes made, a lot of things you regret. Every parent fails their kid to some degree at some point. I haven't yet, but I have no doubt that I will. That doesn't excuse me from responsibility when I do. It's my job to look after any children I may have. Filbuste isn't doing that, and he's making excuses for it.
Just as a note, nearly all google software is open source, but google does more to lock us in, categorize us, and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumters than Microsoft ever did.
I have a kid, not 4 admitedly, but I do have a kid, I've got some idea of the kind of time and energy this takes.
Let me lay it out for you. If you're not parenting your kids, you're a shitty parent. I don't care what your excuse is, kids with disabilities, your own disability, if you can't parent your kids, you're a shitty parent.
That's not to say that all laws designed to assist parents are bad laws, but no law is going to replace you as a parent, and if you can't give your kids the attention you need you are, and I repeat, a shitty parent.
The long and the short of it is most likely a threat from Microsoft to move. They don't have to stay in Redmond, it would be expensive for them to move, and inconvenient, but not by any stretch of the imagination impossible. I mean half of 1% isn't exactly high, but on 70 billion dollars it's still 280 million a year, and it wouldn't take all that long for that to pay for the costs of relocation.
In all likelihood Microsoft went to the Washington State government and made the point that the tax benefits from Microsoft staying in Redmond were greater than the revenue generated from this tax, which they wouldn't have if Microsoft moved to a state which didn't have this royalties tax(of which there are plenty).
States quite often give tax breaks to large companies in order to have their corporate headquarters located in that state. Microsoft hires an awful lot of people on high salaries who then pay state income tax, buy products and pay state sales tax, buy homes and pay local property tax. Those purchases pay other peoples wages who also pay tax. Add in all the other kinds of tax Microsoft would pay(Washington is not a zero corporate tax state) and they bring in a lot more than 280 million dollars for the state.
True enough, the iPad has made it popular to bash Apple again.
As much as I love to do that it's worth noting that most of these were made during the period Steve Jobs wasn't in charge. He may be an evil cult leading SOB, but he does for the most part make good products.
I'd make a guess and say the author was actually talking about built in CRTs which were a dumb idea.
LCD's especially modern LCDs really don't take up all that much room, you have to put in more space to make it big enough for people to work with and plug things into than you need to actually run the display.
CRTs on the other hand were big, ran hot, and tended to blow up unexpectedly. Building those into computers was a pretty awful idea long before Apple stopped actually doing it.
Book prices for non US residents are substantially higher to cover the roaming costs.
The devices themselves also aren't cheap and as far as I can tell are not actually the new Kindle, but an older model.
The long and the short of it is that the selling point of the Kindle is Amazon's service that goes along with it. Without that it's not as good as the Sony devices. Considering they're just starting to release devices which will work outside the US, they're more expensive, not the most recent model, and for extra fun you have to get them shipped from the US, you start to see that the appeal of the device is a little diminished outside the US.
The iPad will probably be great for magazines, and possibly certain kinds of reference books where the lack of colour and slower page turns of a traditional ebook reader really cause problems.
For regular book reading however, an LCD screen is crap and so the iPad will be crap.
The Kindle plus the Amazon service it comes with are certainly a very powerful team. You could even argue that it offers the best overall consumer experience.
However, there are any number of places where the service provided with the Kindle is unavailable, and the pricing on the new non US models isn't exactly attractive since it's based on international roaming from AT&T. That's not even taking into account the fact that it isn't the most recent version of the hardware either.
Without that service, the Kindle is really a steaming pile of crap.
Most people don't care much about the most profitable path. Finance is great if that's what you want to do, but god awful if it's not, and starting your own business is an incredible amount of work, a high risk, and even when it pays off you generally end up as a manager of some sort. Again, great if that's your thing.
On the other hand, nearly everyone cares about making enough money to pay their bills. If what you want to do is be an AI researcher, then you've got to find some way to do that and still get paid. That's what these guys are doing. Nothing particularly unethical about it. Disingenuous perhaps, but academia, like most of life, is kind of like that. Those of us who don't have the right kind of personality to be the boss for whatever reason have to work for someone who does. We have to convince that someone that they should pay money for what we're doing, and a lot of times that someone doesn't understand what it is that we're doing so we have to fudge things a bit. That's just life.
You didn't get help because fixing your problem would have been too hard.
So their customers didn't have to authorize their copies of windows XP, Dell shipped a slightly different version of Windows XP which required different keys(they wouldn't work in non Dell copies of Windows XP). To prevent redistribution they also required a check against the Dell BIOS to prove it was a Dell machine.
When you replaced the motherboard you presumably didn't do so with a dell part, which meant that your version of Windows XP wouldn't have authorized no matter what anyone did.
The OP on the other hand, probably had just a regular OEM version.
To fix your problem the guy on the phone would have had to send you a new copy of Windows along with a new key. To fix the OP's problem they had to click a button. Can you see why you might have gotten different responses?
Linux supports a lot of old hardware, however it supports bugger all new hardware, and really never has and never(at least while the current political wind is blowing among the kernel developers) will.
A lot of the problems you're aluding to aren't actually the problems you think they are.
The sound card problem is really more of an issue with creative labs than anything else. In order to achieve the market position they have, creative labs built quite a number of their own proprietory systems on top of direct sound which was, prior to Windows Vista the audio stack for all windows versions going back quite a number of years. With Windows Vista, Microsoft switched their sound stack from their own proprietory direct sound implementation into one based on OpenAL which is the audio equivilant of OpenGL and as far as I can tell a free and open standard. This was a good thing, a buggy old proprietory standard was replaced with an open one. Unfortunately a lot of creative cards, given that their drivers and software were so tightly integrated with the old sound stack had rather serious problems. Creative refused to update a lot of their drivers for quite some time, presumably believing that they were big enough that Microsoft would cave and put direct sound back on, they didn't. While it's true that the original sound blasters didn't use much of this stuff and work fine on most systems(including linux) you can't really blame Microsoft for not trusting those drivers however.
I'll take your word on the 10/100 cards, I've never seen or heard of it happening. Same with analog game ports, though that might be sound cards again.
The problem with USB scanners is the proprietory TWAIN drivers. Before Microsoft implemented a halfway decent version themselves, companies used to make their own and they'd use direct kernel access and undocumented APIs to make them work, which Microsoft never has and never will support.
Most of the problems you encounter are caused by vendors giving up on a particular piece of hardware and not writing drivers for it.
I'm more than well aware of that. However, while you and I can remember the three rules of robotics, I doubt the vast majority of the population can say the same.
That might be true, however how many of us have lied because the person who determines whether we get to keep doing what we're doing doesn't understand what it is we do.
The field of AI has had some astounding successes. Huge amounts of human progress in the last 20 years or so can be attributed directly to progress in that field. Strong AI is probably actually a rather stupid goal. Aside from all the potential skynet problems, how does it help us? Robots to do menial tasks yes, robots to rule the world? Why? If you want robots to do work for pennies, stupid is much better than smart.
The problem is is that the general public and therefor the kinds of people who invest in this sort of thing, and who give grants to university departments and all sorts of things like that associate artificial intelligence with androids. Sadly sometimes science is run more by what brings in students or grant money, or press interest than what is actually needed, and these guys have to live in that world.
And as I recall Oppenheimer was pretty damned sure that the atomic bomb was going to be bad for humanity to(something about becoming death destroy of worlds springs to mind). It was still his job to build one, and aside from any patriotic obligations he may have felt, it was what paid his bills.
And that's quite possibly true(though it's only recently that people have started to realize just exactly how much computational power it takes just to perceive and react to the world.
It's also rather beside the point. The point is that that kind of computational density is a prerequisite to having AI that can function on human terms. They cannot build one until they can manage that. Presuming that they get there in 20 years, they still won't have taken the first steps into actually creating an AI that is smarter than a human.
Human level AI might be possible, but it isn't possible in 20 years. They need that kind of tech just to seriously start building such an intelligence, and the tech isn't there. The tech needs to be orders of magnitude higher than it is right now, as well as, in all likelihood vastly different than anything we currently have.
They're not totally biased because they're trying to sell us AI, they're totally biased because they want grant money.
The problem with AI is that the world believes that the goal of AI is to create Data from Star Trek TNG(or maybe C3P0 for the older crowd). This is the yard stick by which they measure the progress of AI. It doesn't matter that computers are more and more capable of doing tasks, and even growing capable to some degree of working out what they should do on their own(within certain very limited bounds), they aren't self aware and able to talk to me, so AI is a failure.
This means that AI experts have to upsell the possibility of this happening to keep getting grant money from people who don't understand what they do.
Now the reality of the situation is that at present we still don't have the computational density in our computers to create something which can even correctly process things like vision, let alone all five senses to create something that can perceive the world in a way remotely similar to the way we do. While it might be possible to create some alien form of intelligence totally unlike our own without having any of these inputs, it wouldn't pass most of the milestones being presented here, let alone be able to take over for actual humans in any kind of job which requires any kind of creativity.
The AI experts know this, they most likely also know that creating super human intelligence, aside from any inherent risks, isn't really all that beneficial. The problem is that they also know that 20 years is the answer the grant committees want to hear.
Paypal is running large scale financial transactions. Why shouldn't they be required to identify who they're running those transactions for. I'm sure the tax department would love to know and personally I'd rather see everyone pay their fair share of tax instead of me doing it all because I don't run an online business.
That's not actually true. AFAIK, internet bank transfers(to a non linked account) count as a transaction, and accord appropriate fees(it just isn't listed the same way), and international transfers cost quite a bit of money. In fact, transferring money to the US to pay my student loans I get hit on the way out(since Oz charges to you send) and on the way in(since the US charges you to receive). YMMV depending on the deal your bank offers you though.
Bank charges here are actually substantially higher than they are in the US, and, at least when I was living there, most ordinary savings accounts would generate some amount of interest whereas in my experience you have to get special accounts to get anything here.
That said, in the US banks went under during the GFC and our money grubbing, fee charging SOBs continued to turn a profit, so there might be a lesson here.
Because they're more convenient than regular books?
Because they're slightly cheaper than regular books?
Because you don't have to buy more bookshelves and find someplace to put them?
Because unless you sell the book within a couple of months of release its resale value is pretty much zero anyway by the time you pay for the petrol to get it to the place you're selling it to, and if you're selling it that fast, get it from a library.
Generally speaking most people don't sell their books, and those that do don't actually make very much money doing it, certainly not more than the general couple of bucks difference between an e-book and a regular book.
Most people who talk about resale want to buy them used, not actually sell them.
Owning what you buy is a feature, it's an important feature, but it's not so vital that price and/or additional benefits of a format can't overcome its value.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not, except for the insane or people who aren't able or willing to use a reasonable imaging and app distribution system.
It appears that people who didn't RTFA or who work at tiny tiny sites are criticizing these guys without knowing what the hell they're talking about.
No one does workstation backups because it's costly, risky, inefficient, and generally doesn't work. The only way to make it work is to say "put all the documents you need to backup here" and here is better off being a network drive anyway.
Primarily because parallel programming(taking advantage of multiple cores) is substantially more complex and difficult than the more traditional single core variety. It's not a matter of just flipping a switch.
Add to that the fact that multicore systems have only really become common over the last few years and most game engines in current games were begun well before this was the case. At that time dedicating serious resources to multicore was probably considered a waste.
It kind of looks like from the article that it's designed to be used to restrict access to content based on the wishes of the publisher, not of third parties like governments.
Of course it could be used to censor content, but google(and for that matter the governments themselves) can do that anyway. It's not like China can't(and doesn't) block access to certain web locations it doesn't want its citizens to see. It doesn't stop back channel distribution of course, but neither does this.
I feel the need to respond to this again, as I have inadvertently let this become a personal attack which wasn't my intention.
It's possible that Filbuste wasn't responding to the original post in the way I believe he was. It's possible he interpreted the original post as 24 hour monitoring which isn't possible. I meant my post to be more general and I apologize.
Actually I don't coddle my kid, nor do I suggest people do that.
The original criticism wasn't saying that you should spy on your kids 24 hours a day(that's daft), but that you should take responsibility for what they watch on tv and view on the internet. That's basic supervision, not coddling. Then Filbuste said that he couldn't provide that basic level of supervision for his two non disabled kids due to the time it takes to focus on the disabled ones. There is no excuse for being a shitty parent. When you have a disabled kid it's hard, really hard, but it doesn't remove your responsibility to adequately parent your other children.
Parenting is hard work. There's a lot of hard decisions, a lot of mistakes made, a lot of things you regret. Every parent fails their kid to some degree at some point. I haven't yet, but I have no doubt that I will. That doesn't excuse me from responsibility when I do. It's my job to look after any children I may have. Filbuste isn't doing that, and he's making excuses for it.
Just as a note, nearly all google software is open source, but google does more to lock us in, categorize us, and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumters than Microsoft ever did.
What imaginary world?
I have a kid, not 4 admitedly, but I do have a kid, I've got some idea of the kind of time and energy this takes.
Let me lay it out for you. If you're not parenting your kids, you're a shitty parent. I don't care what your excuse is, kids with disabilities, your own disability, if you can't parent your kids, you're a shitty parent.
That's not to say that all laws designed to assist parents are bad laws, but no law is going to replace you as a parent, and if you can't give your kids the attention you need you are, and I repeat, a shitty parent.
States do this all the time.
The long and the short of it is most likely a threat from Microsoft to move. They don't have to stay in Redmond, it would be expensive for them to move, and inconvenient, but not by any stretch of the imagination impossible. I mean half of 1% isn't exactly high, but on 70 billion dollars it's still 280 million a year, and it wouldn't take all that long for that to pay for the costs of relocation.
In all likelihood Microsoft went to the Washington State government and made the point that the tax benefits from Microsoft staying in Redmond were greater than the revenue generated from this tax, which they wouldn't have if Microsoft moved to a state which didn't have this royalties tax(of which there are plenty).
States quite often give tax breaks to large companies in order to have their corporate headquarters located in that state. Microsoft hires an awful lot of people on high salaries who then pay state income tax, buy products and pay state sales tax, buy homes and pay local property tax. Those purchases pay other peoples wages who also pay tax. Add in all the other kinds of tax Microsoft would pay(Washington is not a zero corporate tax state) and they bring in a lot more than 280 million dollars for the state.
True enough, the iPad has made it popular to bash Apple again.
As much as I love to do that it's worth noting that most of these were made during the period Steve Jobs wasn't in charge. He may be an evil cult leading SOB, but he does for the most part make good products.
I'd make a guess and say the author was actually talking about built in CRTs which were a dumb idea.
LCD's especially modern LCDs really don't take up all that much room, you have to put in more space to make it big enough for people to work with and plug things into than you need to actually run the display.
CRTs on the other hand were big, ran hot, and tended to blow up unexpectedly. Building those into computers was a pretty awful idea long before Apple stopped actually doing it.
Book prices for non US residents are substantially higher to cover the roaming costs.
The devices themselves also aren't cheap and as far as I can tell are not actually the new Kindle, but an older model.
The long and the short of it is that the selling point of the Kindle is Amazon's service that goes along with it. Without that it's not as good as the Sony devices. Considering they're just starting to release devices which will work outside the US, they're more expensive, not the most recent model, and for extra fun you have to get them shipped from the US, you start to see that the appeal of the device is a little diminished outside the US.
The iPad will probably be great for magazines, and possibly certain kinds of reference books where the lack of colour and slower page turns of a traditional ebook reader really cause problems.
For regular book reading however, an LCD screen is crap and so the iPad will be crap.
That sort of depends on your point of view.
The Kindle plus the Amazon service it comes with are certainly a very powerful team. You could even argue that it offers the best overall consumer experience.
However, there are any number of places where the service provided with the Kindle is unavailable, and the pricing on the new non US models isn't exactly attractive since it's based on international roaming from AT&T. That's not even taking into account the fact that it isn't the most recent version of the hardware either.
Without that service, the Kindle is really a steaming pile of crap.
Most people don't care much about the most profitable path. Finance is great if that's what you want to do, but god awful if it's not, and starting your own business is an incredible amount of work, a high risk, and even when it pays off you generally end up as a manager of some sort. Again, great if that's your thing.
On the other hand, nearly everyone cares about making enough money to pay their bills. If what you want to do is be an AI researcher, then you've got to find some way to do that and still get paid. That's what these guys are doing. Nothing particularly unethical about it. Disingenuous perhaps, but academia, like most of life, is kind of like that. Those of us who don't have the right kind of personality to be the boss for whatever reason have to work for someone who does. We have to convince that someone that they should pay money for what we're doing, and a lot of times that someone doesn't understand what it is that we're doing so we have to fudge things a bit. That's just life.
You didn't get help because fixing your problem would have been too hard.
So their customers didn't have to authorize their copies of windows XP, Dell shipped a slightly different version of Windows XP which required different keys(they wouldn't work in non Dell copies of Windows XP). To prevent redistribution they also required a check against the Dell BIOS to prove it was a Dell machine.
When you replaced the motherboard you presumably didn't do so with a dell part, which meant that your version of Windows XP wouldn't have authorized no matter what anyone did.
The OP on the other hand, probably had just a regular OEM version.
To fix your problem the guy on the phone would have had to send you a new copy of Windows along with a new key. To fix the OP's problem they had to click a button. Can you see why you might have gotten different responses?
Linux supports a lot of old hardware, however it supports bugger all new hardware, and really never has and never(at least while the current political wind is blowing among the kernel developers) will.
A lot of the problems you're aluding to aren't actually the problems you think they are.
The sound card problem is really more of an issue with creative labs than anything else. In order to achieve the market position they have, creative labs built quite a number of their own proprietory systems on top of direct sound which was, prior to Windows Vista the audio stack for all windows versions going back quite a number of years. With Windows Vista, Microsoft switched their sound stack from their own proprietory direct sound implementation into one based on OpenAL which is the audio equivilant of OpenGL and as far as I can tell a free and open standard. This was a good thing, a buggy old proprietory standard was replaced with an open one. Unfortunately a lot of creative cards, given that their drivers and software were so tightly integrated with the old sound stack had rather serious problems. Creative refused to update a lot of their drivers for quite some time, presumably believing that they were big enough that Microsoft would cave and put direct sound back on, they didn't. While it's true that the original sound blasters didn't use much of this stuff and work fine on most systems(including linux) you can't really blame Microsoft for not trusting those drivers however.
I'll take your word on the 10/100 cards, I've never seen or heard of it happening. Same with analog game ports, though that might be sound cards again.
The problem with USB scanners is the proprietory TWAIN drivers. Before Microsoft implemented a halfway decent version themselves, companies used to make their own and they'd use direct kernel access and undocumented APIs to make them work, which Microsoft never has and never will support.
Most of the problems you encounter are caused by vendors giving up on a particular piece of hardware and not writing drivers for it.
I'm more than well aware of that. However, while you and I can remember the three rules of robotics, I doubt the vast majority of the population can say the same.
That might be true, however how many of us have lied because the person who determines whether we get to keep doing what we're doing doesn't understand what it is we do.
The field of AI has had some astounding successes. Huge amounts of human progress in the last 20 years or so can be attributed directly to progress in that field. Strong AI is probably actually a rather stupid goal. Aside from all the potential skynet problems, how does it help us? Robots to do menial tasks yes, robots to rule the world? Why? If you want robots to do work for pennies, stupid is much better than smart.
The problem is is that the general public and therefor the kinds of people who invest in this sort of thing, and who give grants to university departments and all sorts of things like that associate artificial intelligence with androids. Sadly sometimes science is run more by what brings in students or grant money, or press interest than what is actually needed, and these guys have to live in that world.
And as I recall Oppenheimer was pretty damned sure that the atomic bomb was going to be bad for humanity to(something about becoming death destroy of worlds springs to mind). It was still his job to build one, and aside from any patriotic obligations he may have felt, it was what paid his bills.
And that's quite possibly true(though it's only recently that people have started to realize just exactly how much computational power it takes just to perceive and react to the world.
It's also rather beside the point. The point is that that kind of computational density is a prerequisite to having AI that can function on human terms. They cannot build one until they can manage that. Presuming that they get there in 20 years, they still won't have taken the first steps into actually creating an AI that is smarter than a human.
Human level AI might be possible, but it isn't possible in 20 years. They need that kind of tech just to seriously start building such an intelligence, and the tech isn't there. The tech needs to be orders of magnitude higher than it is right now, as well as, in all likelihood vastly different than anything we currently have.
They're not totally biased because they're trying to sell us AI, they're totally biased because they want grant money.
The problem with AI is that the world believes that the goal of AI is to create Data from Star Trek TNG(or maybe C3P0 for the older crowd). This is the yard stick by which they measure the progress of AI. It doesn't matter that computers are more and more capable of doing tasks, and even growing capable to some degree of working out what they should do on their own(within certain very limited bounds), they aren't self aware and able to talk to me, so AI is a failure.
This means that AI experts have to upsell the possibility of this happening to keep getting grant money from people who don't understand what they do.
Now the reality of the situation is that at present we still don't have the computational density in our computers to create something which can even correctly process things like vision, let alone all five senses to create something that can perceive the world in a way remotely similar to the way we do. While it might be possible to create some alien form of intelligence totally unlike our own without having any of these inputs, it wouldn't pass most of the milestones being presented here, let alone be able to take over for actual humans in any kind of job which requires any kind of creativity.
The AI experts know this, they most likely also know that creating super human intelligence, aside from any inherent risks, isn't really all that beneficial. The problem is that they also know that 20 years is the answer the grant committees want to hear.
Expensive or not, how is that a bad thing?
Paypal is running large scale financial transactions. Why shouldn't they be required to identify who they're running those transactions for. I'm sure the tax department would love to know and personally I'd rather see everyone pay their fair share of tax instead of me doing it all because I don't run an online business.
That's not actually true. AFAIK, internet bank transfers(to a non linked account) count as a transaction, and accord appropriate fees(it just isn't listed the same way), and international transfers cost quite a bit of money. In fact, transferring money to the US to pay my student loans I get hit on the way out(since Oz charges to you send) and on the way in(since the US charges you to receive). YMMV depending on the deal your bank offers you though.
Bank charges here are actually substantially higher than they are in the US, and, at least when I was living there, most ordinary savings accounts would generate some amount of interest whereas in my experience you have to get special accounts to get anything here.
That said, in the US banks went under during the GFC and our money grubbing, fee charging SOBs continued to turn a profit, so there might be a lesson here.
Because they're more convenient than regular books?
Because they're slightly cheaper than regular books?
Because you don't have to buy more bookshelves and find someplace to put them?
Because unless you sell the book within a couple of months of release its resale value is pretty much zero anyway by the time you pay for the petrol to get it to the place you're selling it to, and if you're selling it that fast, get it from a library.
Generally speaking most people don't sell their books, and those that do don't actually make very much money doing it, certainly not more than the general couple of bucks difference between an e-book and a regular book.
Most people who talk about resale want to buy them used, not actually sell them.
Owning what you buy is a feature, it's an important feature, but it's not so vital that price and/or additional benefits of a format can't overcome its value.
I live in Oz, very few companies give us newer anything for quite some time, so I haven't seen those yet.
None of this of course changes the joke that is Chrome OS.