I think the poster's comment was supposed to suggest the use of more efficient devices appropriate to the task, not necessarily those particular devices. A massively powerful gaming PC is overkill and a waste of resources IF all one does is e-mail and web browsing.
I agree with you there. At the same time, a more correct headline would have been "Internet Being Used in Dismantling the State Church in Finland." The posting title is inaccurate, in that it is NOT the "Internet" that is dismantling the church. The people resigning from the Church are dismantling it. The Internet is simply being used as a tool to do so, by providing information that the individuals use to make their decision, and provide a means of carrying out their decision.
It is interesting that they do a bit of revisionist history, claiming that the iPod was a superior device. In fact it had many of the limitation people complain of the iPad. I did not allow wireless connection for data. It did not have a memory slot. It was firewire only.
I think that sometimes product reviewers put too much emphasis on the number of features on a product's spec sheet, and equate "superior" to "more features than anybody else." Unless a feature is well-implemented and actually used by the majority of the target market, it's useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. Even if a product has feature X implemented poorly, reports of its poor implementation may influence the buying decision even if it's a feature the buyer has no intention of using.
Case in point: the new iPod Touch's rear camera. Its low-resolution (1 megapixel) is, IMHO, a poor implementation and not up to what one would expect from Apple. This poor implementation could be a bigger hit against the iPod Touch than leaving the camera out entirely. Instead of rants against the lack of a camera, the rants will now be about a lousy camera.
I say probably because I couldn't find many tablet sales number past 2005. There were a total of 1 million tablets sold that year, Apple sold 3 million iPad in the first 80 days. I don't think the market got better for tablets after 2005.
If there was a market, none of the product offerings met the needs of that market. I looked at tablets back in the early 2000s. The tablets at the time weren't much more than half-assed attempts using a laptop form factor with a touch-sensitive pivoting screen that looked like it would snap right off if you looked at it wrong. They were big, bulky, and expensive.
Maybe Apple just happened to hit the target first once the technology evolved that would allow development of the proper form factor.
I find it interesting that these after-the-fact products use Apple's offerings (iPhone and now the iPad) as the benchmark product. This tells me that other manufacturers see that Apple got it right, whether it's due to marketing or technology, By comparing themselves to Apple's products, other manufacturers have made them the gold standard.
My laptop delivers a much better experience. For one thing, it has a MUCH bigger screen, and can display HD without downscaling to 1024x676 - which is crap. I can also plug it into my plasma and watch in 1920x1980 - even if you use the video out cable for the ipad, you're STILL watching it at 1024x576. I also have 640 gigs of storage on twin internal drives, 4 usb ports, I can run flash, I have a real keypad... I don't have to hold it to work with it, the screen is big enough (17") that I won't go blind trying to read it, and others can watch at the same time, and I can install anything I want on it - like linux.
Let us know when your iPad can do all that. Heck, let us know when you can run Flash.
It won't because that's not what it's meant to do. If your needs call for multiple USB ports, twin internal drives with 640 GB of storage, then the iPad is NOT FOR YOU.
I could say "My truck provides a much better experience (than your economy car, for example). I can carry a thousand pounds of cargo or tow a big trailer. I can go off-road, drive through deep snow or mud and not get stuck." If those activities are what you do, then of course an economy car is not the right vehicle.
As always, it's a case of the right tool for the right job. Why is this simple fact lost on so many people? Is the desire to bash Apple so strong that it blocks rational thought? Is this the Reality Distortion Field's anti-Apple twin?
You don't measure received signal strength in dB loss, unless you know exactly how much was transmitted for comparison. You measure it in terms of received power, usually in units of dBm. At the signal levels we're talking about here, you will see a range from -51 dBm all the way down to about -113 dBm. Good luck in getting anybody who's not RF tech-saavy to understand how a signal can have a negative level.
So, to make it simple on those who don't need to know (or really care about) the engineering behind RF communications, a simple 0-5 scale represented by signal bars is sufficient. It may be more accurate to add in the S/N ratio to the equation (if not already there) to determine the number of bars to show, but to expose the average cell phone user to that kind of detail will cause eyeballs to roll back into skulls.
...THAT'S precisely the point of insurance (which I'd like to believe the armed forces provide)...
Unless it's changed in the 13 years I've been out, then the answer is: No, the miitary does not provide life insurance. It may be different now or if you are married.
When I was in the service, you had the opportunity to buy into a life insurance policy called Servicemembers General Life Insurance (SGLI). I can't remember if it was administered by the government or contracted out to a private insurance company, but you could get life insurance for a pretty cheap premium. After getting honorably discharged, I converted it to a Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policy, with still pretty cheap premiums ($150,000 coverage for $200/year) and is administered by a private company (Prudential).
Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.
It would seem to me that this would be a good use of the Internet. To start: if California voters form a Facebook group calling attention to this, that would start the word spreading. Groups are formed for all sorts of nonsensical things (like the perpetual hoax that Facebook will soon start charging a monthly fee), this robo-calling is something that is real.
A YouTube video clip calling attention to it would be another route. Tweet and re-tweet it via Twitter. Blog about it. Post to other online forums. Heck, email your friends and relative that are affected by this. Contact the candidate directly and confront her about it.
People don't mind being ABLE to restrict the content that reaches them. They mind when it's some corporation halfway across the USA pushing their social agenda on them*.
Apple is not pushing a "social agenda." Apple is choosing to not allow certain types of apps into the app store. If you were forced to buy and use certain types of apps only from Apple, then the "social agenda" argument may hold water. As it is, you are under no obligation to buy Apple products, or not buy somebody else's products.
I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.
And even if Apple did have complete control of what is available on the iPhone/iPad, who cares? Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?
To all these questions, there is but one answer: No. You have other options. There is the web, as you pointed out. There are books. There is broadcast TV or radio. Build and market your own e-reader. You can say what you want, publish what you want, but that doesn't obligate anybody particular entity to distribute it.
Oddly enough a lot of them still want to play farmville on facebook. It worked on my Mac, why not my iPad?
Because Apple decided not to include the required functionality. If you bought an iPad expecting to play Farmville, you made an bad buying decision, and nothing more. Freedoms were not removed or denied.
You have hit the nail on the head. I have disliked for a long time the tone that the Apple detractors take. "Apple is taking our freedom to do what we want with the iDevice! How dare they!" Really? You were forced to buy an Apple iDevice?
I don't think so.
Either buy it or don't. Bitch about the lack of features or how you hate the UI or whatever...you are free to do that. But don't claim your freedoms are being stripped away. Save that argument for oppressive regimes that truly force you to do something against your will.
I'm interpreting your definition of "freedom" in this context to mean "I can do whatever I want with the device without having to get around some arbitrary restrictions." If that's the case, then the definition of "freedom" is tied then to what the user considers "everything." For you, it may mean having access to a terminal prompt and the file system, and installing software obtained from multiple sources without Apple's blessing. By this definition, then yes, the iPad restricts your "freedom."
My definition of "everything" is vastly different. For me, "everything" at the moment consists of web surfing, email, music, marine navigation charts, plus the occasional e-magazine or ebook, in a form factor much more convenient than a notebook. I have not run into any arbitrary restriction that limits my "freedom."
If the demand is there, then yes, WebOS and Android will be on tablets and offer the users your definition of "freedom." I'll be so bold as to say that the three will co-exist quite nicely (except for the expected lawsuits screaming "infringement!" by everybody at everybody else). The iPad satisfies my needs, and Android will satisfy your needs.
I really dislike this whole tossing about the idea that a device which you are free to buy or not restricts one's "freedom." It's just a device that either does what you want, or it doesn't. Buy it, or not.
Given the success of the iPad thus far, I'd say that for some users, the answer is "yes." Not everybody needs a terminal prompt with root access. Not everybody needs 100% access the the OS's most fundamental settings. Not everybody needs their platform to do everything imaginable.
It's quite simple: either you like the iPad or you don't. If you do, good for you. If you don't, buy something else. Last I checked, nobody has been forced to buy an iPad.
A lot of cable subscribers still have analog televisions, since a digital TV is not required if you don't subscribe to your cable provider's HD channels. By turning off the analog outputs at Hollywood's notice, these subscribers won't be able to watch these movies. You don't have to want to copy the content in order to need those analog outputs to stay turned on.
Look at the privacy settings pages again. The one that lets you "lock down" who has access to the info on your profile says this on top, in not-exactly-attention-grabbing text:
"These settings only control the information people can see on your profile. This information, such as your Pages and list of friends, is still public, so it could appear elsewhere on the site and be accessed by applications you and your friends use."
Locking out apps is only part of it.
Note the part where it says "your Pages"...the info in your profile for work and education, for example, are not just text on your profile page anymore. Your profile now has links to pages with this information. In other words, that info, even if not visible in your profile, is public and can be accessed via the Facebook API (somebody please correct me if I am misunderstanding this).
It's like global thermonuclear war..."The only winning move is not to play."
We, the Slashdot crowd ridicule the vote-counters for their mistake, yet there are over 100 posts and responses arguing the point. We ridicule them for what they did then, even as we do it now.
You make it sound like you are forced to develop for Apple platforms or beg for handouts on the street.
What's forcing you to develop for the Apple platform? If you find the terms unacceptable, develop for a different platform. If the terms are that oppressive and developers abandon the platform in droves as you imply they will, the terms will be revised as appropriate.
Such a thing may exist...check out the Kindle, nook, or iPad. I know that you can buy individual magazines from the iTunes store, and subscriptions aren't far behind. Now, the individual price is a bit of an issue at the moment, but it's a new market and will eventually settle out. DRM and lock-in may also be an issue for some (some on technical grounds, some moral...whatever) but there are sone options
Oh wait, maybe it actually does do what they want, just not what _you_ want. Is it possible that the N900 is right for you and the iPhone right for others?
Of course not...what *I* want is what everybody wants, they just don't know it!
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 0, Troll
with the truly insane individual thrown in for good measure.
Which could cover the Anarchist, Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican.
When you take a primate whose visual system has been shaped by millenia of evolution in an environment where every movement in the corner of your eye is either dinner or about to make you dinner, and put them a few rows back in a class full of screens showing moving images, their attention is going to suffer, whether they like it or not.
Too true...in all my college classes, I found that I was able to pay attention to the lecture better when I sat in the front two rows. Wen I was in back, I was distracted by the littlest of things...that student over there fiddling with her phone, that student over there who brought a three-course meal to class. The downside was that I didn't know who was in class with me half the time, because they sat behind me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the poster's comment was supposed to suggest the use of more efficient devices appropriate to the task, not necessarily those particular devices. A massively powerful gaming PC is overkill and a waste of resources IF all one does is e-mail and web browsing.
I agree with you there. At the same time, a more correct headline would have been "Internet Being Used in Dismantling the State Church in Finland." The posting title is inaccurate, in that it is NOT the "Internet" that is dismantling the church. The people resigning from the Church are dismantling it. The Internet is simply being used as a tool to do so, by providing information that the individuals use to make their decision, and provide a means of carrying out their decision.
If there was a market, none of the product offerings met the needs of that market. I looked at tablets back in the early 2000s. The tablets at the time weren't much more than half-assed attempts using a laptop form factor with a touch-sensitive pivoting screen that looked like it would snap right off if you looked at it wrong. They were big, bulky, and expensive.
Maybe Apple just happened to hit the target first once the technology evolved that would allow development of the proper form factor.
I find it interesting that these after-the-fact products use Apple's offerings (iPhone and now the iPad) as the benchmark product. This tells me that other manufacturers see that Apple got it right, whether it's due to marketing or technology,
By comparing themselves to Apple's products, other manufacturers have made them the gold standard.
Well said, good sir. You are one who "gets it."
It won't because that's not what it's meant to do. If your needs call for multiple USB ports, twin internal drives with 640 GB of storage, then the iPad is NOT FOR YOU.
I could say "My truck provides a much better experience (than your economy car, for example). I can carry a thousand pounds of cargo or tow a big trailer. I can go off-road, drive through deep snow or mud and not get stuck." If those activities are what you do, then of course an economy car is not the right vehicle.
As always, it's a case of the right tool for the right job. Why is this simple fact lost on so many people? Is the desire to bash Apple so strong that it blocks rational thought? Is this the Reality Distortion Field's anti-Apple twin?
The poster was referring to ads on websites, not in apps, by pointing out Adblock Plus on his/her N900.
You don't measure received signal strength in dB loss, unless you know exactly how much was transmitted for comparison. You measure it in terms of received power, usually in units of dBm. At the signal levels we're talking about here, you will see a range from -51 dBm all the way down to about -113 dBm. Good luck in getting anybody who's not RF tech-saavy to understand how a signal can have a negative level.
So, to make it simple on those who don't need to know (or really care about) the engineering behind RF communications, a simple 0-5 scale represented by signal bars is sufficient. It may be more accurate to add in the S/N ratio to the equation (if not already there) to determine the number of bars to show, but to expose the average cell phone user to that kind of detail will cause eyeballs to roll back into skulls.
Unless it's changed in the 13 years I've been out, then the answer is: No, the miitary does not provide life insurance. It may be different now or if you are married.
When I was in the service, you had the opportunity to buy into a life insurance policy called Servicemembers General Life Insurance (SGLI). I can't remember if it was administered by the government or contracted out to a private insurance company, but you could get life insurance for a pretty cheap premium. After getting honorably discharged, I converted it to a Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policy, with still pretty cheap premiums ($150,000 coverage for $200/year) and is administered by a private company (Prudential).
It would seem to me that this would be a good use of the Internet. To start: if California voters form a Facebook group calling attention to this, that would start the word spreading. Groups are formed for all sorts of nonsensical things (like the perpetual hoax that Facebook will soon start charging a monthly fee), this robo-calling is something that is real.
A YouTube video clip calling attention to it would be another route. Tweet and re-tweet it via Twitter. Blog about it. Post to other online forums. Heck, email your friends and relative that are affected by this. Contact the candidate directly and confront her about it.
It's a little, but it's a start.
Apple is not pushing a "social agenda." Apple is choosing to not allow certain types of apps into the app store. If you were forced to buy and use certain types of apps only from Apple, then the "social agenda" argument may hold water. As it is, you are under no obligation to buy Apple products, or not buy somebody else's products.
And even if Apple did have complete control of what is available on the iPhone/iPad, who cares? Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?
To all these questions, there is but one answer: No. You have other options. There is the web, as you pointed out. There are books. There is broadcast TV or radio. Build and market your own e-reader. You can say what you want, publish what you want, but that doesn't obligate anybody particular entity to distribute it.
Because Apple decided not to include the required functionality. If you bought an iPad expecting to play Farmville, you made an bad buying decision, and nothing more. Freedoms were not removed or denied.
Hear hear!
You have hit the nail on the head. I have disliked for a long time the tone that the Apple detractors take. "Apple is taking our freedom to do what we want with the iDevice! How dare they!" Really? You were forced to buy an Apple iDevice?
I don't think so.
Either buy it or don't. Bitch about the lack of features or how you hate the UI or whatever...you are free to do that. But don't claim your freedoms are being stripped away. Save that argument for oppressive regimes that truly force you to do something against your will.
I'm interpreting your definition of "freedom" in this context to mean "I can do whatever I want with the device without having to get around some arbitrary restrictions." If that's the case, then the definition of "freedom" is tied then to what the user considers "everything." For you, it may mean having access to a terminal prompt and the file system, and installing software obtained from multiple sources without Apple's blessing. By this definition, then yes, the iPad restricts your "freedom."
My definition of "everything" is vastly different. For me, "everything" at the moment consists of web surfing, email, music, marine navigation charts, plus the occasional e-magazine or ebook, in a form factor much more convenient than a notebook. I have not run into any arbitrary restriction that limits my "freedom."
If the demand is there, then yes, WebOS and Android will be on tablets and offer the users your definition of "freedom." I'll be so bold as to say that the three will co-exist quite nicely (except for the expected lawsuits screaming "infringement!" by everybody at everybody else). The iPad satisfies my needs, and Android will satisfy your needs.
I really dislike this whole tossing about the idea that a device which you are free to buy or not restricts one's "freedom." It's just a device that either does what you want, or it doesn't. Buy it, or not.
Given the success of the iPad thus far, I'd say that for some users, the answer is "yes." Not everybody needs a terminal prompt with root access. Not everybody needs 100% access the the OS's most fundamental settings. Not everybody needs their platform to do everything imaginable.
It's quite simple: either you like the iPad or you don't. If you do, good for you. If you don't, buy something else. Last I checked, nobody has been forced to buy an iPad.
A lot of cable subscribers still have analog televisions, since a digital TV is not required if you don't subscribe to your cable provider's HD channels. By turning off the analog outputs at Hollywood's notice, these subscribers won't be able to watch these movies. You don't have to want to copy the content in order to need those analog outputs to stay turned on.
Look at the privacy settings pages again. The one that lets you "lock down" who has access to the info on your profile says this on top, in not-exactly-attention-grabbing text:
"These settings only control the information people can see on your profile. This information, such as your Pages and list of friends, is still public, so it could appear elsewhere on the site and be accessed by applications you and your friends use."
Locking out apps is only part of it.
Note the part where it says "your Pages"...the info in your profile for work and education, for example, are not just text on your profile page anymore. Your profile now has links to pages with this information. In other words, that info, even if not visible in your profile, is public and can be accessed via the Facebook API (somebody please correct me if I am misunderstanding this).
It's like global thermonuclear war..."The only winning move is not to play."
You know what the real issue here is?
We, the Slashdot crowd ridicule the vote-counters for their mistake, yet there are over 100 posts and responses arguing the point. We ridicule them for what they did then, even as we do it now.
You make it sound like you are forced to develop for Apple platforms or beg for handouts on the street.
What's forcing you to develop for the Apple platform? If you find the terms unacceptable, develop for a different platform. If the terms are that oppressive and developers abandon the platform in droves as you imply they will, the terms will be revised as appropriate.
Such a thing may exist...check out the Kindle, nook, or iPad. I know that you can buy individual magazines from the iTunes store, and subscriptions aren't far behind. Now, the individual price is a bit of an issue at the moment, but it's a new market and will eventually settle out. DRM and lock-in may also be an issue for some (some on technical grounds, some moral...whatever) but there are sone options
Of course not...what *I* want is what everybody wants, they just don't know it!
Which could cover the Anarchist, Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican.
Too true...in all my college classes, I found that I was able to pay attention to the lecture better when I sat in the front two rows. Wen I was in back, I was distracted by the littlest of things...that student over there fiddling with her phone, that student over there who brought a three-course meal to class. The downside was that I didn't know who was in class with me half the time, because they sat behind me.