I have a Surface 2 with Windows RT, and even though It's not getting Windows 10, it's still had way more updates than any Android device I've ever had, which is exactly the market it was competing in. I really like it and use it every day. I only wish it had more games, but other than that, it does everything I want out of a tablet. If it continues to be compatible with games made for Windows 10 app store, then that would be a huge plus. It doesn't need to have the entire operating system, just support for the apps.
I think that RT was kind of a short stop-gap solution to fix the problem of making low(er) cost Windows tablets at a time when running full Windows would have been just too expensive. Not that you can get tablets running full X86 windows for $100-$200, there's much less of a reason to continue on with Windows RT. I hope that when Windows 10 comes out, along with the next iteration of Surface, that they will have some cheaper options, perhaps without the pen and maybe a celeron/atom processor. That would probably be comparable in price to the Surface RT and Surface 2 when they came out, while at the same time allowing people to run the full version of Windows 10.
Oh. I completely agree. There's no reason to have DRM on Netflix now that the DRM has been broken on BluRay. If pirates wanted to copy the movies they would just use the BluRay as it's much more convenient. It would be great if there was no DRM required for Netflix, but at the end of the day Netflix can't make that decision on their own. They can only distribute the movies that they are given access to by the movie companies under the agreed upon terms. I'm just saying that Netflix is doing the best they are capable of given what the realities of the industry are. Perhaps the only thing better they could do would be to allow it to work without DRM for movie companies that are ok with distributing without DRM. Netflix should also release the content they produce without DRM to show they are in support of this (if indeed they are). Then it's up to the users of the service if there is enough content without DRM for it to be worth the subscription fee. Then Netflix could really pass the blame onto the movie studios for not making the content more easily available to everyone.
Even ignoring the obvious problems with blind people and idiots who forgot to turn on their lights, what about trying to cross a road that has a bend it in. Often you can't see around the bend, and the only way to safely cross is to listen for cars coming. Not only that, but as a cyclist, I find it very important to be able to hear cars coming up behind me. Sure I look back and check to see if they are coming, but the closing speed is really fast on some roads, and the car could be catch up to you in a very short period of time. And again, you might not be able to see the car even if they are only a little bit behind you if there is a bend in the road.
In defense of Netflix, they support playing videos over HTML5 (with DRM extenstions of course). So if Blackberry would update their browser to support HTML5 with DRM, then blackberry users could watch Netflix on their devices.
By supporting HTML5 video, it's completely up to the device maker to allow people to use Netflix on the device, even if there isn't an official app from Netflix. In the same way, I think that it would be nice if Apple had an open API for accessing iMessage, so that other apps could be built to communicate with their system from Non-Apple devices. That being said, it's their own service and they should in no way be forced to do it.If Apple thinks the market want it, and it's worth their money, they should do it on their own terms.
I was pleasantly surprise when my Surface 2 with Windows RT started working with Netflix in the browser. The do have and app, but I actually prefer the way the browser interface works.
Almost nobody alive right now will still be around in 100 years, and almost certainly nobody of voting age will be around in 100 years. Most people really don't care what happens that far out. So many other things can change on such a large time period that it almost isn't worth trying to plan so far ahead. In the past 100 years, we've gone from the majority of people using horses or walking to the majority of people using cars. Maybe we'll end up heading back the other way to the point where nobody drives their own car. Maybe we will have finally gotten fusion power working and we can have clean, cheap power.
Yeah, but since it's not baked into the Android OS, it doesn't work with all the apps. It actually only works with a small subset of apps that are modified to work within the Windowed interface. So you can do things like watch a video while browsing the web, but you can't play Minecraft on half the screen while playing Candy Crush on the other half.
For $149 you could buy an Intel Compute Stick, and it would run windows games. Some of them anyway. It wouldn't run the latest high definition graphics-fest games, but since it run standard Windows, there's a lot of games it would support. Give it a few more years, and I completely forsee having a Windows dongle for $40-$50. I don't think Android and other alternative OS's will be able to compete for very long at that price.
I upgraded my laptop to Windows 8 when it came out because they had a special price of $39. If they can sell windows at that price to the end user, I could see them selling a lot more copies. I'm looking into getting a new desktop PC, and it's a choice between settle for some HP/Dell/Whatever machine that doesn't quite meet my wants, but get it because windows is included for free, or build my own machine exactly the way I want it, and run Linux. The reason I don't want to run Windows on the PC I build myself is because I find that $100 for the OS on a $500 computer to be a little bit much to ask. If the cost of the OS was lower for end users, I could see a lot of people getting it, even if they are only running it as a second OS.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but I think that MS actually avoided some of the pitfalls that Android and iOS fell into because they entered the phone/mobile market so early. iOS and Android both have decided that only 1 app will be on the screen. Which is fine for a 4 inch phone, but for 10 inch tablets, it's really nice to be able to be able to have 2 apps (or even more) on the screen at the same time. Android has a ton of deprecated APIs because they realized that they weren't doing stuff the right way the first few versions. Microsoft's app development environment is much more cohesive and doesn't require jumping through hoops like a lot of stuff on Android. Not that they have full windows running on tablets (some as cheap as $100), I wonder if it won't be too long before people drop Android. Having an operating system with the ability to display a classic windowed UI opens a lot of possibilities. Android is fine if you just want to watch a movie or read a book, but Windows is a lot more productive when you're trying to get actual work done.
The problem isn't Microsoft or old versions of Windows. Old versions of Windows run Firefox and Chrome just fine. The blame for the problems lies solely on the users and corporations/organizations that refuse to use a current browser. If you need a certain version of IE for some old intranet application, then go ahead and use it specifically for that app. But there's no reason why websites available to the general public should be required to support old browsers.
Sounds a lot like the Intel Compute Stick. maybe not powerful enough for everyone, but for a lot of users, it would be the ideal device. It would be so great to not have to worry about syncing files or even how software licenses transfer between machines when you can put a full powered computer in your pocket.
Even if you wanted to change something in the processor, who would you get to manufacture it. This is a 22 nm chip. Not something that any fab in the world can produce. You can change the design all you want, but you're going to be at the mercy of Intel, or perhaps a couple other large multinational corporations to get the thing made.
Apparently the new Blackberry OS was supposed to be able to run Android apps. It didn't help them at all. I think you were required to recompile the app for BlackBerry, but that shouldn't be that hard for most devs to do. Then again, it amazes me that the Amazon App store doesn't have every single app that the Google Play store has. Why would you want to limit the exposure of your app and not put it on the Amazon App store?
Even having permanent standing desks combined with a drafting stool of the proper height could go a long way without increasing the cost of furniture. That would allow you to easily switch between standing and sitting without having a desk that has height adjustments.
I have a Surface 2, and I really have to say, the only problem that I have with it is the lack of apps. It's not a huge problem, because the only reason I need more apps is having a larger selection of games. Other than that, there are 0 problems that I have with the device. Windows 8.1 is so much better than Android on 10 inch tablets. Native support for multiple apps at the same time is a huge feature. Mounting network drives is another really great feature. The browser is the best mobile browser I've ever used. The fact that it has a full size USB port means that I can plug in a USB stick or even a portable spinning hard drive and have access to huge amounts of data, or I could plug in an Ethernet dongle and have wired Ethernet. Had I been able to afford the Surface Pro 3 at the time I definitely would have got that. It basically covers the use cases of having a laptop ($400) and a tablet ($200) all in one device. But it's way better than any $400 laptop and $200 tablet you can get. Like you said, it's basically as good as any other laptop in the same price range, with the added functionality of being able to detach the keyboard and use it like a tablet when you want to. I hope the next time around they put out a lower power Surface Pro without the pen (because I know that adds a lot to the price) and a lower end processor like the Atom/Celeron in order to bring the price down a bit. A Surface Pro, even with reduced specs and no digitizer, for $500 or less would be a huge seller.
I really hope there's a way to buy/rent the movies without having to sign up for a monthly service. I really don't like the way things are headed right now. $99 a year for a Amazon, $7.99 a month for Netflix. $7.99 a month for Hulu. And they all have some content you can only get on their service. Give it a few years and a few more providers, and online offerings are going to cost almost the same amount as cable TV currently does. There needs to be some kind of method of renting/buying individual shows/movies from the exclusive content that doesn't cost so much. Currently the rates for buying stuff off iTunes and other online stores is way too inflasted. $5-$6 for a movie rental way too high a price to be asking. It should be much close to $2 for a movie rental, or 25 to 50 cents for a tv show.
It definitely is a cheap way to build a house. Although, most of the cost of buying a house has more to do with procuring the land then it does with the actual cost of building it. Might make sense in some places where cost of land is quite low. Although in many of those places, the infrastructure for building the "house factory" and transporting the house to the site would be the major problem to solve.
The first article actually states both 5 and 6 storeys. Judging from the picture however, 5 seems to be right, unless there is a basement and you are counting that.
At one point in university I considered getting this "laptop". It had no internal battery, but had the ability to connect an external battery where you would usually connect the adapter. At the time I wanted a laptop for portability, but couldn't afford a proper one. At the time, they were about $700, whereas a real laptop would be around $1200. I never did end up getting it. At the time I really only needed it for university, and they had plenty of open power recepticles.
That's exactly what I said. So the person with an IQ doesn't get to be on the jury. But where's the cut-off? It would be different depending on the case. Some cases might be quite complicated, and would require someone with an above average IQ to really grasp, perhaps even 110 or 120, or regardless of the actual IQ, somebody with knowledge in a particular field.
I understand what you're saying but on the other side, selecting 12 random people doesn't yield much a of fair trial either. They are supposed to ask the jurors questions to weed up people who have biases one way or the other. They wouldn't let a rape victim sit on a jury of a rape case. Why not weed out people who obviously lack the cognitive ability to understand the evidence that will be presented in the case. They just draw names a random. If they drew the name of somebody with an IQ of 50, that person would be excused because they lack the mental capacity to make a reasonable decision about the facts presented. Different cases are going to require a different levels of intelligence in order to fully understand the facts.
But you don't get what I'm saying. I don't think a dealership actually have any cars to function. The dealership simply is just there to tell you about the car and, if you agree, put you on the waiting list. A standard dealership would only be able to sell you a car if you happened to like one that happened to be on the lot. But they don't have every combination of every car, so they often end up having to order one. How long that car takes to get to you depends on the manufacturer. I haven't seen anything that prevents a dealership from operating without any cars at all.
The problem is that a system like this would pretty much be impossible to implement. When I request a web page, and it uses TLS for HTTPS, It generates a key just for the connection specifically so that compromising the private key of the server does not allow past communications to be decrypted once the private key is compromised, or if the case of a law like this, when it is taken out of escrow. The only way to implement this would be to backup the actual data itself along with the corresponding generated key.
Obviously since he didn't mention encryption specifically, he probably has no idea what he is talking about and is just spouting his mouth off, but this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to dangerous laws that are either completely unable to be implemented in real life or are disastrous to the advancement of technology.
Like I said, It's probably legal to have a dealership that doesn't have any cars at all. There's probably lots of Ford dealerships that don't have an F350 sitting on the lot, but if you walked up to one and said you wanted to buy one, they would sell it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Surface 2 with Windows RT, and even though It's not getting Windows 10, it's still had way more updates than any Android device I've ever had, which is exactly the market it was competing in. I really like it and use it every day. I only wish it had more games, but other than that, it does everything I want out of a tablet. If it continues to be compatible with games made for Windows 10 app store, then that would be a huge plus. It doesn't need to have the entire operating system, just support for the apps.
I think that RT was kind of a short stop-gap solution to fix the problem of making low(er) cost Windows tablets at a time when running full Windows would have been just too expensive. Not that you can get tablets running full X86 windows for $100-$200, there's much less of a reason to continue on with Windows RT. I hope that when Windows 10 comes out, along with the next iteration of Surface, that they will have some cheaper options, perhaps without the pen and maybe a celeron/atom processor. That would probably be comparable in price to the Surface RT and Surface 2 when they came out, while at the same time allowing people to run the full version of Windows 10.
Although I agree they are different things, there are quite a few similarities between gas giants (like Jupiter), brown dwarfs, and stars
Oh. I completely agree. There's no reason to have DRM on Netflix now that the DRM has been broken on BluRay. If pirates wanted to copy the movies they would just use the BluRay as it's much more convenient. It would be great if there was no DRM required for Netflix, but at the end of the day Netflix can't make that decision on their own. They can only distribute the movies that they are given access to by the movie companies under the agreed upon terms. I'm just saying that Netflix is doing the best they are capable of given what the realities of the industry are. Perhaps the only thing better they could do would be to allow it to work without DRM for movie companies that are ok with distributing without DRM. Netflix should also release the content they produce without DRM to show they are in support of this (if indeed they are). Then it's up to the users of the service if there is enough content without DRM for it to be worth the subscription fee. Then Netflix could really pass the blame onto the movie studios for not making the content more easily available to everyone.
Even ignoring the obvious problems with blind people and idiots who forgot to turn on their lights, what about trying to cross a road that has a bend it in. Often you can't see around the bend, and the only way to safely cross is to listen for cars coming. Not only that, but as a cyclist, I find it very important to be able to hear cars coming up behind me. Sure I look back and check to see if they are coming, but the closing speed is really fast on some roads, and the car could be catch up to you in a very short period of time. And again, you might not be able to see the car even if they are only a little bit behind you if there is a bend in the road.
In defense of Netflix, they support playing videos over HTML5 (with DRM extenstions of course). So if Blackberry would update their browser to support HTML5 with DRM, then blackberry users could watch Netflix on their devices.
By supporting HTML5 video, it's completely up to the device maker to allow people to use Netflix on the device, even if there isn't an official app from Netflix. In the same way, I think that it would be nice if Apple had an open API for accessing iMessage, so that other apps could be built to communicate with their system from Non-Apple devices. That being said, it's their own service and they should in no way be forced to do it.If Apple thinks the market want it, and it's worth their money, they should do it on their own terms.
I was pleasantly surprise when my Surface 2 with Windows RT started working with Netflix in the browser. The do have and app, but I actually prefer the way the browser interface works.
Almost nobody alive right now will still be around in 100 years, and almost certainly nobody of voting age will be around in 100 years. Most people really don't care what happens that far out. So many other things can change on such a large time period that it almost isn't worth trying to plan so far ahead. In the past 100 years, we've gone from the majority of people using horses or walking to the majority of people using cars. Maybe we'll end up heading back the other way to the point where nobody drives their own car. Maybe we will have finally gotten fusion power working and we can have clean, cheap power.
Yeah, but since it's not baked into the Android OS, it doesn't work with all the apps. It actually only works with a small subset of apps that are modified to work within the Windowed interface. So you can do things like watch a video while browsing the web, but you can't play Minecraft on half the screen while playing Candy Crush on the other half.
For $149 you could buy an Intel Compute Stick, and it would run windows games. Some of them anyway. It wouldn't run the latest high definition graphics-fest games, but since it run standard Windows, there's a lot of games it would support. Give it a few more years, and I completely forsee having a Windows dongle for $40-$50. I don't think Android and other alternative OS's will be able to compete for very long at that price.
I upgraded my laptop to Windows 8 when it came out because they had a special price of $39. If they can sell windows at that price to the end user, I could see them selling a lot more copies. I'm looking into getting a new desktop PC, and it's a choice between settle for some HP/Dell/Whatever machine that doesn't quite meet my wants, but get it because windows is included for free, or build my own machine exactly the way I want it, and run Linux. The reason I don't want to run Windows on the PC I build myself is because I find that $100 for the OS on a $500 computer to be a little bit much to ask. If the cost of the OS was lower for end users, I could see a lot of people getting it, even if they are only running it as a second OS.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but I think that MS actually avoided some of the pitfalls that Android and iOS fell into because they entered the phone/mobile market so early. iOS and Android both have decided that only 1 app will be on the screen. Which is fine for a 4 inch phone, but for 10 inch tablets, it's really nice to be able to be able to have 2 apps (or even more) on the screen at the same time. Android has a ton of deprecated APIs because they realized that they weren't doing stuff the right way the first few versions. Microsoft's app development environment is much more cohesive and doesn't require jumping through hoops like a lot of stuff on Android. Not that they have full windows running on tablets (some as cheap as $100), I wonder if it won't be too long before people drop Android. Having an operating system with the ability to display a classic windowed UI opens a lot of possibilities. Android is fine if you just want to watch a movie or read a book, but Windows is a lot more productive when you're trying to get actual work done.
The problem isn't Microsoft or old versions of Windows. Old versions of Windows run Firefox and Chrome just fine. The blame for the problems lies solely on the users and corporations/organizations that refuse to use a current browser. If you need a certain version of IE for some old intranet application, then go ahead and use it specifically for that app. But there's no reason why websites available to the general public should be required to support old browsers.
Sounds a lot like the Intel Compute Stick. maybe not powerful enough for everyone, but for a lot of users, it would be the ideal device. It would be so great to not have to worry about syncing files or even how software licenses transfer between machines when you can put a full powered computer in your pocket.
Even if you wanted to change something in the processor, who would you get to manufacture it. This is a 22 nm chip. Not something that any fab in the world can produce. You can change the design all you want, but you're going to be at the mercy of Intel, or perhaps a couple other large multinational corporations to get the thing made.
Apparently the new Blackberry OS was supposed to be able to run Android apps. It didn't help them at all. I think you were required to recompile the app for BlackBerry, but that shouldn't be that hard for most devs to do. Then again, it amazes me that the Amazon App store doesn't have every single app that the Google Play store has. Why would you want to limit the exposure of your app and not put it on the Amazon App store?
Even having permanent standing desks combined with a drafting stool of the proper height could go a long way without increasing the cost of furniture. That would allow you to easily switch between standing and sitting without having a desk that has height adjustments.
I have a Surface 2, and I really have to say, the only problem that I have with it is the lack of apps. It's not a huge problem, because the only reason I need more apps is having a larger selection of games. Other than that, there are 0 problems that I have with the device. Windows 8.1 is so much better than Android on 10 inch tablets. Native support for multiple apps at the same time is a huge feature. Mounting network drives is another really great feature. The browser is the best mobile browser I've ever used. The fact that it has a full size USB port means that I can plug in a USB stick or even a portable spinning hard drive and have access to huge amounts of data, or I could plug in an Ethernet dongle and have wired Ethernet. Had I been able to afford the Surface Pro 3 at the time I definitely would have got that. It basically covers the use cases of having a laptop ($400) and a tablet ($200) all in one device. But it's way better than any $400 laptop and $200 tablet you can get. Like you said, it's basically as good as any other laptop in the same price range, with the added functionality of being able to detach the keyboard and use it like a tablet when you want to. I hope the next time around they put out a lower power Surface Pro without the pen (because I know that adds a lot to the price) and a lower end processor like the Atom/Celeron in order to bring the price down a bit. A Surface Pro, even with reduced specs and no digitizer, for $500 or less would be a huge seller.
I really hope there's a way to buy/rent the movies without having to sign up for a monthly service. I really don't like the way things are headed right now. $99 a year for a Amazon, $7.99 a month for Netflix. $7.99 a month for Hulu. And they all have some content you can only get on their service. Give it a few years and a few more providers, and online offerings are going to cost almost the same amount as cable TV currently does. There needs to be some kind of method of renting/buying individual shows/movies from the exclusive content that doesn't cost so much. Currently the rates for buying stuff off iTunes and other online stores is way too inflasted. $5-$6 for a movie rental way too high a price to be asking. It should be much close to $2 for a movie rental, or 25 to 50 cents for a tv show.
It definitely is a cheap way to build a house. Although, most of the cost of buying a house has more to do with procuring the land then it does with the actual cost of building it. Might make sense in some places where cost of land is quite low. Although in many of those places, the infrastructure for building the "house factory" and transporting the house to the site would be the major problem to solve.
The first article actually states both 5 and 6 storeys. Judging from the picture however, 5 seems to be right, unless there is a basement and you are counting that.
At one point in university I considered getting this "laptop". It had no internal battery, but had the ability to connect an external battery where you would usually connect the adapter. At the time I wanted a laptop for portability, but couldn't afford a proper one. At the time, they were about $700, whereas a real laptop would be around $1200. I never did end up getting it. At the time I really only needed it for university, and they had plenty of open power recepticles.
That's exactly what I said. So the person with an IQ doesn't get to be on the jury. But where's the cut-off? It would be different depending on the case. Some cases might be quite complicated, and would require someone with an above average IQ to really grasp, perhaps even 110 or 120, or regardless of the actual IQ, somebody with knowledge in a particular field.
I understand what you're saying but on the other side, selecting 12 random people doesn't yield much a of fair trial either. They are supposed to ask the jurors questions to weed up people who have biases one way or the other. They wouldn't let a rape victim sit on a jury of a rape case. Why not weed out people who obviously lack the cognitive ability to understand the evidence that will be presented in the case. They just draw names a random. If they drew the name of somebody with an IQ of 50, that person would be excused because they lack the mental capacity to make a reasonable decision about the facts presented. Different cases are going to require a different levels of intelligence in order to fully understand the facts.
But you don't get what I'm saying. I don't think a dealership actually have any cars to function. The dealership simply is just there to tell you about the car and, if you agree, put you on the waiting list. A standard dealership would only be able to sell you a car if you happened to like one that happened to be on the lot. But they don't have every combination of every car, so they often end up having to order one. How long that car takes to get to you depends on the manufacturer. I haven't seen anything that prevents a dealership from operating without any cars at all.
The problem is that a system like this would pretty much be impossible to implement. When I request a web page, and it uses TLS for HTTPS, It generates a key just for the connection specifically so that compromising the private key of the server does not allow past communications to be decrypted once the private key is compromised, or if the case of a law like this, when it is taken out of escrow. The only way to implement this would be to backup the actual data itself along with the corresponding generated key.
Obviously since he didn't mention encryption specifically, he probably has no idea what he is talking about and is just spouting his mouth off, but this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to dangerous laws that are either completely unable to be implemented in real life or are disastrous to the advancement of technology.
Like I said, It's probably legal to have a dealership that doesn't have any cars at all. There's probably lots of Ford dealerships that don't have an F350 sitting on the lot, but if you walked up to one and said you wanted to buy one, they would sell it to you.