"According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military’s base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more than $1 trillion a year."
One trillion dollars, 2/3's of the entire deficit in one great big pile. That's more than the 2010 numbers for Medicare AND Medicade combined. That's more than Social Security AND the interest on the federal budget. Add it all up, and the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
We overpay for super-high-tech planes and ships that are so expensive, they can't even be sent into combat (B2, Virginia, littoral combat vessels). We can not afford this. Defense spending as a percentage of the GNP broke the USSR. It can break us.
But you got to love it when, instead, people latch onto "entitlements". SS needs work, but is it an "entitlement" to expect to collect some form of social security insurance after you've paid into the program for you entire life? Is it an entitlement to care for our sick and elderly, whom our health insurance compaines refuse to insure because doing so is too expensive? Or is it our responsibility?
"According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military’s base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more than $1 trillion a year. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the regular military budget, not including the add-ons, has doubled from a low of about $360 billion in 1998 to more than $739 billion in 2011. It’s so much money that, as the Bipartisan Policy report points out, by 2009 US spending on military research and development alone, about $80 billion, surpassed China’s entire military budget by more than $10 billion. The budget for the US Special Forces alone is greater than the total military spending of nearly 100 countries; overall, the United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined."
Epic game developer calls iPad 2 graphics leap "astonishing"
"Last year's A4 CPU used in the iPhone 4 and iPad is roughly "comparable to a single Xbox 360 core" Sweeney estimated. The new A5 used in iPad 2 holds the potential for "far, far more potential in that platform than we're exploiting today," he added."
"Sweeney said iPad 2 delivers enough shader performance that "you can use the high-detail shaders we did during Gears of War." The interview noted that "more complex shaders and post-processing effects are going to remain the visual differentiators between high-end mobile devices and consoles for the time being, though we could 'see more of that with more time with the iPad 2.'""
I think you have it backwards. Google is open when it suits their purposes. And when it suits their purposes, their "openness" will end.
I think they're is going to get all of the tablet folk to commit to Android, then ship their own superior tablet based on Chrome, upon which they'll drop Android development like a hot potato, leaving all of the suckers gasping for air and wondering what the hell just happened.
Don't forget Schmidt was on Apple's board, saw the iPhone, and then snuck out and developed Android.
Being a Google Android partner is almost as safe as being a Microsoft "PlaysForSure" partner...
If you look at most of my comments, you'll see that many of them do in fact treat the question as an issue in pure semantics, conflating "belief" in a scientific process that does in fact produce miracles with "faith" in an intolerant religious process and system whose primary product, for much of history, was death.
God? I don't know.
But a god and that single-handedly created the world in seven days a mere 6,000 years ago? A god who grows petulant and angry if not sufficiently worshiped? A god propagated by a worship system assembled piecemeal over the centuries and in which non-believers must be killed in order to save them?
That god? No thanks. And thanks for assuming that I have not, in fact, looked into the matter.
"One of those options is true, and science cannot answer it."
"...and, of course, you almost certainly only know that because experts tell you!"
Degrees in electronics and electrical engineering don't count?
Regardless, science produces theories, which in turn leads to advances that in turn produce products. The fact that the products work reinforce the fact that the theory was correct. In short, we have direct evidence.
The end products of religion seem to be equal parts hope... and fear and hatred and death.
Conflating "faith" in a process that works with religious "faith" is little more than semantic trickery...
'Since the faith of the priests is likely to be greater than the faith of a presumably agnostic/atheistic/. poster - you may not be able to replicate the results yourself."
So? In which case is it the faith that's proven, or have we simply proven some side effect of having a sufficiently large number of true believers?
Or is it a case of having a sufficiently adept practitioner? The Prophet Muhammad is said to have performed miracles. As such, it would seem to follow that any "faith" would do the job...
"Technically, we have absolutely no idea of the big bang happened..... We think a lot of unproven math with yet more unproven theories support that it did. But at the end of the day, even the high priests of science must still use a leap of faith."
No, they don't. Because they then attempt to develop experiments that will help either prove -- or disprove -- those *theories*. Upon which they'll take those results in hand, evaluate them, develop new theories, and repeat the process all over again. In this case, CERN, the LHC, and the search for the Higgs boson will either help support the Big Bang theory, or weaken it.
Faith, in the religious sense, stops with Faith, and they present their theories as fact. You can't seek to prove them. You can't seek to disprove them. They simply must be believed and accepted as is, because the high priests of that particular Faith told you so.
"This can be said about what you call religious faiths as well... there is past evidence that their claims could be true (e.g., someone named Jesus did exist in Roman times). You may choose to ignore that or conclude that the evidence is not strong enough, but the debate should then be about that evidence..."
Bingo. As said above, "Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting. Most importantly: Science Delivers."
Further, the existence of a single fact -- someone named Jesus did exist in Roman times -- even if true, doesn't provide proof of all of the other claims made on his behalf. Visit a local fishing bar sometime, and you'll hear all about the whales they've caught. Minnows really, but whales make for a far better story.
Did he exist? Perhaps. Men exist, and lots of stories have been written about men. Did he, for example, multiply the loaves and fishes? Perhaps there was more food in that bag than originally thought. Or maybe it was it a magic trick, designed to impress the locals. Or maybe he was actually an alien with a bread-and-fish replicator. "Any sufficiently advanced science..." and all that. Perhaps he was some form of true psychic, able to look into the nature of the universe and manipulate it as he choose.
Or maybe he was the "Son of God". Unfortunately, all we have are hand-me-down tales told and retold by men, and written down by men. And all too often, by men with agendas and a personal interest in perpetuating the myth. The evidence is lacking.
I have a series of books about a talking bear and his friends. The book exists. The stories exist. But is the bear real? I believe that he does. Do you? If not, prove it.
There are many, many questions about the nature of reality. Philosophers love to debate them. Psychologists love to get into the act too, and talk about how we perceive the world. And yes, we do take our perceptions on "faith".
But that doesn't mean you can now perform a semantic trick, and equate "faith" with "religious faith", any more than I can automatically equate that "faith" with "talking bear faith".
Or as Shepherd Book said, "When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I’m talking about God?"
The theory and effects of electron tunneling through doped materials once belonged to the "more distant explorations of science", and yet today we sit here typing on machines that use those applied effects (transistors) as a matter of course.
The "larger" mysteries, like the Higgs, are at the current "fringes" of science, but those fringes can be tested. And they are being tested. The same theories of math and science that gives us practical applications like cell phones and computers and MRI machines tell us that something like the Higgs *should* exist. Does it?
Let's find out. If it does, it confirms what we know. If if doesn't... well isn't *that* interesting. Now, let's find out why.
Science is in a continual state of growth and change.
Religions grow and change too, but they don't like to talk about that. At their core, however, are a set of beliefs that *must* be taken on faith and that can not be tested. Insist on doing so, and you'll be thrown out of the church (best case) or killed (worse case) for your heresy.
Me, I'd like to say that people are free to believe whatever it is that they want to believe. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny, feel free.
Unfortunately, we all live in the same physical world, and the bunny-believers all too often run around leaving half-painted eggs and bunny poop all over my yard...
"Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring..."
More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.
You're also perpetually behind the curve, OS-wise. If Apple releases iOS 5, or Google releases Android 3.1, are you good to go on launch day? Or do you need to wait for your cross-platform vendor to decide whether or not they're going to support the latest goodies?
Our military spending is corrupt, because our government is corrupt, because our corporations are corrupt. It's a vicious, self-perpetuating circle.
In 2010 we spent $663.7 billion on "defense", and a mere $46.7 billion on education. Sad really. Defense is more than half of our discretionary spending.
I suppose by "entitlements", you're referring to health care and social security? Yep. Heaven forbid we take care of the sick, or provide retirement benefits for all of those people who paid into the system...
We already have the most powerful navy and air force in the world. And the largest nuclear arsenal. The question is, do we need to spend three times what the next largest country spends?
More to the point, can we AFFORD it? One might keep in mind that too much military spending was what ultimately bankrupted the USSR.
I'm all for keeping the US and its allies safe and secure. There's more to security, however, than simply having the biggest stick...
They're useful for non-geeks, and many geeks find them useful as well. I've been working on computer systems and programming since 1972, and there are times when you want more than a phone, but don't want to carry a 6.5 pound 17" notebook. Or even a 2.3-pound 11" notebook.
Okay, I'll bite. Reading with the iBooks and Kindle apps. RSS feeds (MobileRSS). Instapaper "Read Later" for articles. Manuals and PDF reference papers. Some games. Apple University training videos. Podcasts. Some movies and TV shows. Writing. News. A better portable email client than the one on my phone. Checking up on servers through WinAdmin (again, better than phone).
Watch Apple's "Year One" video. Then try to use your imagination as to how a notebook might not be the best form factor in many of those situations.
"By the way Google the word "diffraction limit" some time, and try and figure out a fancy way around that one since you think you know so much more."
Sigh. Diffraction characteristics depend greatly upon film/sensor size and aperture. Smaller apertures cause increased diffraction, which can cause an apparent reduction in sharpness, despite the gain in DOF. Etc. Etc. (Ex-professional photographer. Digital photographer every since we've HAD digital cameras (think Sony Mavica, Apple QuickTake, and KODAK DCS 200).)
But as I said, you're arguing "in theory". Theory is good. But as I also said, you don't know which sensor (maybe Sony, maybe not). You don't know what kind of tech. You don't know sensor size. You don't know lens size. You don't know optical quality. You don't know if they're going to do some sort of fancy image processing matched to the lens like DXO labs. So...
".... the reality is while the next 8mpx sensor may be better than the current 5mpx..."
Bingo. Doesn't matter if 5MP might have been even better.
Especially since Apple has to compete with the HTC EVO and others who are also busy upping their numbers.
As I pointed out above, the "jewelry" store was Sony. Subdued lighting. Products under glass.
Apple, on the other hand, put all of their toys right out on the table so you can see them and touch them and play with them. Haven't been to many jewelry stores that had all of the diamonds sitting out on the tables... (grin)
Dell did some stores and a boatload of mall kisoks. Didn't work. Gateway did a bunch of stores. Didn't work, and killed the company. Sony did a bunch of "Sony Experience" stores. Most are closed. Nokia did a bunch of "Nokia Experience" stores... and that... didn't work.
Of them all, Sony had the best shot at it with a wide range of products from computers to cameras to TV's. But when I went to a "Sony Experience" store back in Denver you had to actually "open" a door. In an enclosed mall. It made it quieter inside, but almost too quiet, like being in a museum and not in a store. Why discourage people from wandering in?
Half the products were locked away under glass, and you had to ask to see them. Lighting was subdued. Staff outnumbered the customers three-to-one, persisted in asking if they could help, and the entire time I was there I think they sold one battery for a Sony camcorder.
Apple puts everything out where you can touch the toys and play with them. Staff will let you play, or demo the product for you, your choice. Their stores have free customer support, staffed by real people. They offer classes and training. They'll offfer to setup your new toy, and transfer your old data and files.
Theirs stores are bright, friendly, and energetic.
In short, they're doing an amazing number of things right.
"The people who research logically will find that while a tablet has uses, most of the time it basically doesn't do anything that a laptop or smartphone couldn't already."
I could say that a notebook "basically" doesn't do anything that a desktop couldn't already, but you'd chime in and tell me that portability and form factor make a difference.
And I'd have to agree that you'd be correct... (grin)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's Defense. As I pointed out above....
"According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military’s base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more than $1 trillion a year."
One trillion dollars, 2/3's of the entire deficit in one great big pile. That's more than the 2010 numbers for Medicare AND Medicade combined. That's more than Social Security AND the interest on the federal budget. Add it all up, and the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
We overpay for super-high-tech planes and ships that are so expensive, they can't even be sent into combat (B2, Virginia, littoral combat vessels). We can not afford this. Defense spending as a percentage of the GNP broke the USSR. It can break us.
But you got to love it when, instead, people latch onto "entitlements". SS needs work, but is it an "entitlement" to expect to collect some form of social security insurance after you've paid into the program for you entire life? Is it an entitlement to care for our sick and elderly, whom our health insurance compaines refuse to insure because doing so is too expensive? Or is it our responsibility?
Start with "Defense" spending....
"According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military’s base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more than $1 trillion a year. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the regular military budget, not including the add-ons, has doubled from a low of about $360 billion in 1998 to more than $739 billion in 2011. It’s so much money that, as the Bipartisan Policy report points out, by 2009 US spending on military research and development alone, about $80 billion, surpassed China’s entire military budget by more than $10 billion. The budget for the US Special Forces alone is greater than the total military spending of nearly 100 countries; overall, the United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined."
Epic game developer calls iPad 2 graphics leap "astonishing"
"Last year's A4 CPU used in the iPhone 4 and iPad is roughly "comparable to a single Xbox 360 core" Sweeney estimated. The new A5 used in iPad 2 holds the potential for "far, far more potential in that platform than we're exploiting today," he added."
"Sweeney said iPad 2 delivers enough shader performance that "you can use the high-detail shaders we did during Gears of War." The interview noted that "more complex shaders and post-processing effects are going to remain the visual differentiators between high-end mobile devices and consoles for the time being, though we could 'see more of that with more time with the iPad 2.'""
http://bit.ly/evAQPu
I think you have it backwards. Google is open when it suits their purposes. And when it suits their purposes, their "openness" will end.
I think they're is going to get all of the tablet folk to commit to Android, then ship their own superior tablet based on Chrome, upon which they'll drop Android development like a hot potato, leaving all of the suckers gasping for air and wondering what the hell just happened.
Don't forget Schmidt was on Apple's board, saw the iPhone, and then snuck out and developed Android.
Being a Google Android partner is almost as safe as being a Microsoft "PlaysForSure" partner...
I might also ask why one would want to have "faith" in a process that's demonstrably broken?
If you look at most of my comments, you'll see that many of them do in fact treat the question as an issue in pure semantics, conflating "belief" in a scientific process that does in fact produce miracles with "faith" in an intolerant religious process and system whose primary product, for much of history, was death.
God? I don't know.
But a god and that single-handedly created the world in seven days a mere 6,000 years ago? A god who grows petulant and angry if not sufficiently worshiped? A god propagated by a worship system assembled piecemeal over the centuries and in which non-believers must be killed in order to save them?
That god? No thanks. And thanks for assuming that I have not, in fact, looked into the matter.
"One of those options is true, and science cannot answer it."
Perhaps not yet...
"...and, of course, you almost certainly only know that because experts tell you!"
Degrees in electronics and electrical engineering don't count?
Regardless, science produces theories, which in turn leads to advances that in turn produce products. The fact that the products work reinforce the fact that the theory was correct. In short, we have direct evidence.
The end products of religion seem to be equal parts hope... and fear and hatred and death.
Conflating "faith" in a process that works with religious "faith" is little more than semantic trickery...
'Since the faith of the priests is likely to be greater than the faith of a presumably agnostic/atheistic /. poster - you may not be able to replicate the results yourself."
So? In which case is it the faith that's proven, or have we simply proven some side effect of having a sufficiently large number of true believers?
Or is it a case of having a sufficiently adept practitioner? The Prophet Muhammad is said to have performed miracles. As such, it would seem to follow that any "faith" would do the job...
"Technically, we have absolutely no idea of the big bang happened. .... We think a lot of unproven math with yet more unproven theories support that it did. But at the end of the day, even the high priests of science must still use a leap of faith."
No, they don't. Because they then attempt to develop experiments that will help either prove -- or disprove -- those *theories*. Upon which they'll take those results in hand, evaluate them, develop new theories, and repeat the process all over again. In this case, CERN, the LHC, and the search for the Higgs boson will either help support the Big Bang theory, or weaken it.
Faith, in the religious sense, stops with Faith, and they present their theories as fact. You can't seek to prove them. You can't seek to disprove them. They simply must be believed and accepted as is, because the high priests of that particular Faith told you so.
"The roots of science trace back to provably true axioms which are constant through space and time."
Constant? Like 30 femtoseconds or so after the Big Bang?
"This can be said about what you call religious faiths as well ... there is past evidence that their claims could be true (e.g., someone named Jesus did exist in Roman times). You may choose to ignore that or conclude that the evidence is not strong enough, but the debate should then be about that evidence..."
Bingo. As said above, "Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting. Most importantly: Science Delivers."
Further, the existence of a single fact -- someone named Jesus did exist in Roman times -- even if true, doesn't provide proof of all of the other claims made on his behalf. Visit a local fishing bar sometime, and you'll hear all about the whales they've caught. Minnows really, but whales make for a far better story.
Did he exist? Perhaps. Men exist, and lots of stories have been written about men. Did he, for example, multiply the loaves and fishes? Perhaps there was more food in that bag than originally thought. Or maybe it was it a magic trick, designed to impress the locals. Or maybe he was actually an alien with a bread-and-fish replicator. "Any sufficiently advanced science..." and all that. Perhaps he was some form of true psychic, able to look into the nature of the universe and manipulate it as he choose.
Or maybe he was the "Son of God". Unfortunately, all we have are hand-me-down tales told and retold by men, and written down by men. And all too often, by men with agendas and a personal interest in perpetuating the myth. The evidence is lacking.
I have a series of books about a talking bear and his friends. The book exists. The stories exist. But is the bear real? I believe that he does. Do you? If not, prove it.
There are many, many questions about the nature of reality. Philosophers love to debate them. Psychologists love to get into the act too, and talk about how we perceive the world. And yes, we do take our perceptions on "faith".
But that doesn't mean you can now perform a semantic trick, and equate "faith" with "religious faith", any more than I can automatically equate that "faith" with "talking bear faith".
Or as Shepherd Book said, "When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I’m talking about God?"
The theory and effects of electron tunneling through doped materials once belonged to the "more distant explorations of science", and yet today we sit here typing on machines that use those applied effects (transistors) as a matter of course.
The "larger" mysteries, like the Higgs, are at the current "fringes" of science, but those fringes can be tested. And they are being tested. The same theories of math and science that gives us practical applications like cell phones and computers and MRI machines tell us that something like the Higgs *should* exist. Does it?
Let's find out. If it does, it confirms what we know. If if doesn't... well isn't *that* interesting. Now, let's find out why.
Science is in a continual state of growth and change.
Religions grow and change too, but they don't like to talk about that. At their core, however, are a set of beliefs that *must* be taken on faith and that can not be tested. Insist on doing so, and you'll be thrown out of the church (best case) or killed (worse case) for your heresy.
Me, I'd like to say that people are free to believe whatever it is that they want to believe. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny, feel free.
Unfortunately, we all live in the same physical world, and the bunny-believers all too often run around leaving half-painted eggs and bunny poop all over my yard...
It's time to grow up, people.
"Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring..."
More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.
You're also perpetually behind the curve, OS-wise. If Apple releases iOS 5, or Google releases Android 3.1, are you good to go on launch day? Or do you need to wait for your cross-platform vendor to decide whether or not they're going to support the latest goodies?
Our military spending is corrupt, because our government is corrupt, because our corporations are corrupt. It's a vicious, self-perpetuating circle.
In 2010 we spent $663.7 billion on "defense", and a mere $46.7 billion on education. Sad really. Defense is more than half of our discretionary spending.
I suppose by "entitlements", you're referring to health care and social security? Yep. Heaven forbid we take care of the sick, or provide retirement benefits for all of those people who paid into the system...
We already have the most powerful navy and air force in the world. And the largest nuclear arsenal. The question is, do we need to spend three times what the next largest country spends?
More to the point, can we AFFORD it? One might keep in mind that too much military spending was what ultimately bankrupted the USSR.
I'm all for keeping the US and its allies safe and secure. There's more to security, however, than simply having the biggest stick...
Don't even need a docking station. Just a Bluetooth keyboard.
They're useful for non-geeks, and many geeks find them useful as well. I've been working on computer systems and programming since 1972, and there are times when you want more than a phone, but don't want to carry a 6.5 pound 17" notebook. Or even a 2.3-pound 11" notebook.
Even I don't code ALL of the time.
Okay, I'll bite. Reading with the iBooks and Kindle apps. RSS feeds (MobileRSS). Instapaper "Read Later" for articles. Manuals and PDF reference papers. Some games. Apple University training videos. Podcasts. Some movies and TV shows. Writing. News. A better portable email client than the one on my phone. Checking up on servers through WinAdmin (again, better than phone).
Watch Apple's "Year One" video. Then try to use your imagination as to how a notebook might not be the best form factor in many of those situations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiVeC1Z3yI
Yeah, because they're all going to march across the Pacific and invade the US any day now...
So we need to spend 3X more than China????
"By the way Google the word "diffraction limit" some time, and try and figure out a fancy way around that one since you think you know so much more."
Sigh. Diffraction characteristics depend greatly upon film/sensor size and aperture. Smaller apertures cause increased diffraction, which can cause an apparent reduction in sharpness, despite the gain in DOF. Etc. Etc. (Ex-professional photographer. Digital photographer every since we've HAD digital cameras (think Sony Mavica, Apple QuickTake, and KODAK DCS 200).)
But as I said, you're arguing "in theory". Theory is good. But as I also said, you don't know which sensor (maybe Sony, maybe not). You don't know what kind of tech. You don't know sensor size. You don't know lens size. You don't know optical quality. You don't know if they're going to do some sort of fancy image processing matched to the lens like DXO labs. So...
".... the reality is while the next 8mpx sensor may be better than the current 5mpx..."
Bingo. Doesn't matter if 5MP might have been even better.
Especially since Apple has to compete with the HTC EVO and others who are also busy upping their numbers.
As I pointed out above, the "jewelry" store was Sony. Subdued lighting. Products under glass.
Apple, on the other hand, put all of their toys right out on the table so you can see them and touch them and play with them. Haven't been to many jewelry stores that had all of the diamonds sitting out on the tables... (grin)
"They're not perfect... the set-top-box market was a mistake."
Their time might have been a little off. I'm not yet sure, however, that it's going to be a mistake.
And AirPlay is going to make an awful lot of those Apple TV's very, very useful.
Dell did some stores and a boatload of mall kisoks. Didn't work. Gateway did a bunch of stores. Didn't work, and killed the company. Sony did a bunch of "Sony Experience" stores. Most are closed. Nokia did a bunch of "Nokia Experience" stores... and that... didn't work.
Of them all, Sony had the best shot at it with a wide range of products from computers to cameras to TV's. But when I went to a "Sony Experience" store back in Denver you had to actually "open" a door. In an enclosed mall. It made it quieter inside, but almost too quiet, like being in a museum and not in a store. Why discourage people from wandering in?
Half the products were locked away under glass, and you had to ask to see them. Lighting was subdued. Staff outnumbered the customers three-to-one, persisted in asking if they could help, and the entire time I was there I think they sold one battery for a Sony camcorder.
Apple puts everything out where you can touch the toys and play with them. Staff will let you play, or demo the product for you, your choice. Their stores have free customer support, staffed by real people. They offer classes and training. They'll offfer to setup your new toy, and transfer your old data and files.
Theirs stores are bright, friendly, and energetic.
In short, they're doing an amazing number of things right.
"The people who research logically will find that while a tablet has uses, most of the time it basically doesn't do anything that a laptop or smartphone couldn't already."
I could say that a notebook "basically" doesn't do anything that a desktop couldn't already, but you'd chime in and tell me that portability and form factor make a difference.
And I'd have to agree that you'd be correct... (grin)