The birthers are *not* right - do you not think that if there was even a *tiny* bit of credence to their claims that the GOP would be right in there like a shot? I can assure you that they will have looked into it with considerable vigour.
All the GOP is doing it allowing them (the birthers) to continue down a path that they know is false because it is a goldmine for negative press for Obama.
There is no way he would get as far as taking the oath if everyone concerned, on both sides, was in any doubt as to the legitimacy of his office. Hell, they even went back and repeated the oath again with witnesses after the public version because of the slight mistake so that no one could possibly come at him with "he didn't take the oath properly, thus he is not the president". You *really* think they have overlooked something as obvious as where he was born?
The sort of naysaying that has gone on is much the same quality as the reporting that stated that "stephen Hawking would be dead right now if he had been born under the British (socialised) healthcare system" and ran it as a major story, without bothering to actually check that, y'know, he was born in Britain, under the NHS and actually owes his life to the "death panel" socialised system.
It's the size of a Dodge Magnum, just with 7 seats. It is a turbo diesel, but a euro designed high pressure common rail engine that has better emissions than equivalent petrol vehicles.
I was comparing the UK mpg figure of the Prius with the UK mpg figure of the Touran - I am aware that a US gallon is a different size, although we really should be working in SI, I just don't have the heart for litres/km.
I commute 12 miles per day, and would love to be driving one. It's plenty big enough. If you consider a PT Cruiser to be a "compact" then it is definitely *much much* bigger than one of those. It's not quite the size of a Voyager, but it's close.
The engine in the Touran is the same one used in the Jetta TDI that is sold in the USA by VW, the 150hp common rail turbodiesel, so it clearly meets your "stricter" emissions standards.
Hmm, I guess you can read it that way. I think whether you help people or not you're still going to get robbed by some. Sometimes even the very rich rob you too, they just don't hold a gun to your head while they whisk away all your cash.
Why said anything about hybrids? Hybrids really don;t sell well here in the UK because our petrol and diesel cars are *light years* ahead of the petrol and diesels in the US.
Even China sells cars that are much more efficient than US models.
Hybrid is a bit of a strange duck - I can buy a 60mpg minivan here in the UK that will carry7, or I can buy a... 45mpg Prius...
We are more than aware of new technologies that can assist us in our move to greener living - some are less useful than others, and some are dead ends (you mention biofuels - I agree; these are a dead end).
You jump right into talking about banning people in Africa from burning wood. No one is suggesting that at the moment (at least, not seriously). The developed nations of the world are *vastly* the dominant polluters and energy consumers, so these are the houses that need to be put in order before we start looking at the contribution of wood burning in the third world.
There are a lot of scare stories, and a lot of naysayers, but a great deal of the green tech is just common sense - energy efficient homes and vehicles. If Ford took the cars they sell in Europe right now and put them on US lots (DoT crash tests and certification aside, which they would pass easily) then the MPG would shoot up across the board. It's only the ingrained culture of the US that demands a 3 litre V6 strapped to a lazy slushmatic gearbox in a family car when you can get equal power with considerably better fuel economy from a better-designed 4 cylinder, or even a (shock horror) diesel. That's without even moving away from oil.
Nuclear plants need to be built by the hundred. It's an extremely mature, well understood, green technology that is hobbled by an undeserved public image and crippling legislative issues and regulations. If we can produce a large proportion of our electricity from nuclear and other green sources we take out a major chunk of pollution.
Things like solar hot water (not PV-based) in new homes (in the developed world) would cut energy consumption drastically. Even in the UK, where our climate isn't exactly known for its blazing heat and sunshine, solar hot water systems have proven to be extremely effective. They are expensive to install, but as part of a new build they are a no-brainer. They should be mandated by law to be installed in every new house that is constructed.
A lot of large companies are lazy. BP spends a gigantic amount of money on its cash cow: oil. It spends a truly absurd amount of money annually seeking out new oil sites, while its spending on greener projects is much less. It is spending something, as are companies like Exxon/Shell etc but they could really do more if they wanted to, but there is an emphasis on shareholders and quarterly results. The oil giants made record profits, despite the global recession. They control vast amounts of wealth and are likely the key to our future energy crisis (the cause and the solution) when they choose to put their minds to it.
There's no real need for higher taxes on small businesses - they are generally just scare stories used to make people fear change. We are going to face a huge blow to everyone, including businesses when the cost of oil starts to be truly felt when it becomes scarce. It really is used for almost everything in the modern world that we consume.
So what would you prefer? Something akin to Victorian society in Great Britain? Where the poor really were utterly on their own, a sub-class of "have nots" who were used by the "haves" to make themselves ever wealthier?
A return to Victorian workhouses is really not moving humanity forward. You may not like welfare programmes, but in a capitalist society that also wants to be humanitarian, they are essential. There is no way that an "every man for himself" approach will work.
When you get to the situation of earning $500,000 per year, you can afford to do a little more of the heavy lifting on taxes (proportional to your income) - Both the $500k guy and the guy earning $20k need to spend the same on food, gas, insurance etc but they are proportionally a much more massive expenditure for the poor.
When you reach $500k, whether you pay 30% or 32% in income tax really isn't going to make all that much of a difference to you in terms of your quality of life. It might just go a very long way to helping the society as a whole though, via benefit programs.
"Why should I get taxed to help this poor guy?" - because generally it's good to aspire to help those less fortunate than yourself, even if it is indirectly. A society should be judged on the way it treats its least well-off members.
I'm not advocating taxing the rich into the ground, but they can afford to pay more (proportionally) than the poor. Just because their 30% is a bigger literal dollar number than a poor person's 30% doesn't mean it's unfair to make the rich person pay 35%.
So a guy goes out to work, to try to pull himself up from a poor background - he can't afford college, so his options are limited. He needs to pay for the basics: food, shelter, transport for himself and any dependents he has. The jobs available to him are pretty low wage (with lobbyists fighting hard and spending a lot of money to keep the minimum wage low, low low, and fighting against any increase in rights for these sorts of workers: vacation pay, medical benefits etc).
He makes just enough to live paycheck to paycheck. If he loses his job (hey, the economy is tough!) he will lose his house, or perhaps die of starvation, unless he can find a soup kitchen. Instead he "sucks on the titty of your tax dollars" so that he doesn't die or lose his (very meagre) house while he struggles to find a job - along with the thousands of others all looking for the low wage jobs out there.
Even better, if he gets sick he is royally screwed in the US system. Even if he has a job, the sort of job he has won't have health insurance worth a crap, and if he ends up with a condition that could have easily been sorted with preventative care that he cannot afford, he eventually becomes disabled and unable to work.
You seem to be under the impression that people *like* living at the bottom of the barrel and think it's all sunshine and roses "sucking up your hard earned tax dollars".
How exactly will moving to renewable energy, building homes/businesses that are more energy efficient and better insulated, reducing the carbon output of of major industries and moving toward more sustainable resource use "ruin" the civilisation?
One of the good things about "doing something about climate change" is that even if we turn out to be wrong (and it doesn't look like we are, but just for the sake of argument) then all of those things haven;t done any harm whatsoever, unless you count breaking the grip of the fossil fuel industry and energy companies who are relying on super cheap coal. Their profits will likely go down, but there's nothing to stop them investing in new tech - do you have any idea just how much money is spent on oil field exploration every year? It totally dwarfs the money spent on green power research.
Hell, if we swapped out every single coal plant for a nuclear one right now we would cut the amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere by a gigantic amount, and the amount of CO2. Two birds with one stone.
You can ask for a second opinion, and you are right to. I think you'll find the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists who have been studying the climate for the past 50 years or more will be happy to tell you all about it.
Well, in this case, they went with the more popular network (control freak issues of AT&T aside), which has more than twice the customers of Tmobile (as of 2007). This probably explains why they have been quite successful with the iPhone.
They are successful as a company because they make products that people actually want to buy, and have an excellent marketing department - the two essential sides of the coin. The control they exert in some areas of their products are not terrible enough (or not even a factor) for some people that they don;t matter. Obviously that matters to you, but the technical elite are not really the target market.
Apple does not hate its customers at all. In fact, they are all about the user experience, spending a lot of time and attention to detail on the hardware and software side of things. Just because the way they go about that doesn't mesh with what you personally want from a company does not mean they hate their customers.
There are other providers if you want an open cellphone platform - Apple simply doesn't cater to you. (Although iPhones in the UK are not tied to a network any more, now that the exclusive deal with O2 is over, and has always been able to tether).
I am *well aware* of the issues surrounding the birthers, however, it wouldn't have made a very god joke would it?
He doesn't have to release his private records if he doesn't want to - theres no "hearts and minds if [sic] idiots like me" to win. I'm British, living in the UK, so he doesn't gain anything by getting me on board.
No one (sensible) is just "taking Obama's word for it", there is considerable evidence showing where he was born.
The Preview app in OS X itself is pretty speedy with PDFs - much better and faster that the official Adobe PDF reader for Mac. Preview is the best and fastest PDF viewer I have used in fact, but it is not perfect, especially with complex PDFs that have embedded things in like data entry fields and so on. It also sometimes has graphical glitches - but I have only ever seen this with PDFs created by InDesign CS, so it may be unique to the output from that particular app.
It uses Quartz in OS X for doing this, which is also used by the iPhone, so PDFs on there display exactly the same.
Your best bet would be to see how your PDFs, especially 1000+ page ones, behave in Preview - that is pretty much exactly what they will do on the iPad (but with a 1Ghz cpu). Take a USB stick down to an Apple store and have a go if you have one nearby (unless you already have a Mac).
I know I can take a huge PDF (200+ pages, so not as big as yours) and leaf through it very quickly with no screen lag in OS X in Preview. There is obviously going to be a performance hit on a 1Ghz cpu, but I can tell you the app itself is not cripplingly slow, sluggish or bloated like the Adobe PDF reader is.
Tablet PCs like that already existed long before the iPad. Why didn't you buy one of those?
The iPad also has a decent keyboard accessory - it's essentially an identical version to the bluetooth Apple keyboard I'm using right now, but with a dock built in to mate with the iPad. If you hate the MacBook Pro keyboard then you won't consider it "decent" but it is full size - just lacks a numberpad (like the one I'm using right now).
That is the argument that is often dismissed by people arguing *against* Apple - if you price up a Mac on features/price as was often the case - firewire, built in wireless, bundled software, gigE, bluetooth KB+mouse, webcam then the argument was always turned to bottom line price (back in the days before pretty much everything shipped with all those pieces on the motherboard as extra gravy - Apple were one of the first to ship computers with ethernet and wireless as standard, for example, and include FW even on the lowest models).
Not saying it's a bad argument - I'm sure that a tablet PC + netbook that share the same screen will have more features than the iPad, which is not even a tablet, but it cuts both ways. I can't imagine that it's going to be cheap though.
You just made his point very saliently. I know a lot of people who will buy one because it will do what they want.
It ships with iWork already on the app store, so it has a test [sic] editor right there if you want it - you can save iWork files as plaintext if you like. There will also doubtless be a plaintext editor with syntax highlighting like SEE or somesuch released on the App store when it actually ships. This "office" software (that you apparently can't run, according to you) can work with Word and Excel files, although ymmv depending on the features of the documents. iWork itself is not an MS Office killer, but it can work with Office formats, so you could compose something and save it in.doc format for later editing on your main machine with Office. I doubt we'll actually see a version of Office itself on there but you never know.
Mobile Safari, the browser used on the iPhone *does* support Javascript on the web - I assume that is what you meant, since you said "not even Web with flash or even Java", so I assume you are talking about javascript. It works on the iPhone OS, which the iPad runs so I see no reason that it would be disabled in the iPad version of Safari. Mouseover events are not supported, but then, there is no mouse on the iPad. Of course, there is no Flash, as is often discussed.
"Rationally" the iPad is clearly not for you, but you can't simply dismiss it as useless because it doesn't do the things you personally want and you can't think of any potential use for it.
It is very deliberately *not* a tablet PC - those exist already, and aren't really all that popular outside of niche applications.
I have no idea if it will take off, but it's not at all useless
Slashdot Mirror
"No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame"
Yes, I really trust the slashdot elite to predict the success or failure of a product that *hasn't even been released yet*.
Putting it on a "worst apple products of all time" list is just ludicrously premature and speculative.
The birthers are *not* right - do you not think that if there was even a *tiny* bit of credence to their claims that the GOP would be right in there like a shot? I can assure you that they will have looked into it with considerable vigour.
All the GOP is doing it allowing them (the birthers) to continue down a path that they know is false because it is a goldmine for negative press for Obama.
There is no way he would get as far as taking the oath if everyone concerned, on both sides, was in any doubt as to the legitimacy of his office. Hell, they even went back and repeated the oath again with witnesses after the public version because of the slight mistake so that no one could possibly come at him with "he didn't take the oath properly, thus he is not the president". You *really* think they have overlooked something as obvious as where he was born?
The sort of naysaying that has gone on is much the same quality as the reporting that stated that "stephen Hawking would be dead right now if he had been born under the British (socialised) healthcare system" and ran it as a major story, without bothering to actually check that, y'know, he was born in Britain, under the NHS and actually owes his life to the "death panel" socialised system.
Never let the facts get in the way of politics.
It's the size of a Dodge Magnum, just with 7 seats. It is a turbo diesel, but a euro designed high pressure common rail engine that has better emissions than equivalent petrol vehicles.
I was comparing the UK mpg figure of the Prius with the UK mpg figure of the Touran - I am aware that a US gallon is a different size, although we really should be working in SI, I just don't have the heart for litres/km.
I commute 12 miles per day, and would love to be driving one. It's plenty big enough. If you consider a PT Cruiser to be a "compact" then it is definitely *much much* bigger than one of those. It's not quite the size of a Voyager, but it's close.
The engine in the Touran is the same one used in the Jetta TDI that is sold in the USA by VW, the 150hp common rail turbodiesel, so it clearly meets your "stricter" emissions standards.
Hmm, I guess you can read it that way. I think whether you help people or not you're still going to get robbed by some. Sometimes even the very rich rob you too, they just don't hold a gun to your head while they whisk away all your cash.
By what right do you think that any group has the authority to mandate anything to another group?
When the other group votes that group into power to make those decisions for the benefit (in theory) of the group.
It's called "Government".
Why said anything about hybrids? Hybrids really don;t sell well here in the UK because our petrol and diesel cars are *light years* ahead of the petrol and diesels in the US.
Even China sells cars that are much more efficient than US models.
Hybrid is a bit of a strange duck - I can buy a 60mpg minivan here in the UK that will carry7, or I can buy a... 45mpg Prius...
There's a difference between altruism and robbing someone. Perhaps that's why you posted AC, since your comment is absurd.
So we shouldn't help the less fortunate because some of them might rob you anyway?
We are more than aware of new technologies that can assist us in our move to greener living - some are less useful than others, and some are dead ends (you mention biofuels - I agree; these are a dead end).
You jump right into talking about banning people in Africa from burning wood. No one is suggesting that at the moment (at least, not seriously). The developed nations of the world are *vastly* the dominant polluters and energy consumers, so these are the houses that need to be put in order before we start looking at the contribution of wood burning in the third world.
There are a lot of scare stories, and a lot of naysayers, but a great deal of the green tech is just common sense - energy efficient homes and vehicles. If Ford took the cars they sell in Europe right now and put them on US lots (DoT crash tests and certification aside, which they would pass easily) then the MPG would shoot up across the board. It's only the ingrained culture of the US that demands a 3 litre V6 strapped to a lazy slushmatic gearbox in a family car when you can get equal power with considerably better fuel economy from a better-designed 4 cylinder, or even a (shock horror) diesel. That's without even moving away from oil.
Nuclear plants need to be built by the hundred. It's an extremely mature, well understood, green technology that is hobbled by an undeserved public image and crippling legislative issues and regulations. If we can produce a large proportion of our electricity from nuclear and other green sources we take out a major chunk of pollution.
Things like solar hot water (not PV-based) in new homes (in the developed world) would cut energy consumption drastically. Even in the UK, where our climate isn't exactly known for its blazing heat and sunshine, solar hot water systems have proven to be extremely effective. They are expensive to install, but as part of a new build they are a no-brainer. They should be mandated by law to be installed in every new house that is constructed.
A lot of large companies are lazy. BP spends a gigantic amount of money on its cash cow: oil. It spends a truly absurd amount of money annually seeking out new oil sites, while its spending on greener projects is much less. It is spending something, as are companies like Exxon/Shell etc but they could really do more if they wanted to, but there is an emphasis on shareholders and quarterly results. The oil giants made record profits, despite the global recession. They control vast amounts of wealth and are likely the key to our future energy crisis (the cause and the solution) when they choose to put their minds to it.
There's no real need for higher taxes on small businesses - they are generally just scare stories used to make people fear change. We are going to face a huge blow to everyone, including businesses when the cost of oil starts to be truly felt when it becomes scarce. It really is used for almost everything in the modern world that we consume.
So what would you prefer? Something akin to Victorian society in Great Britain? Where the poor really were utterly on their own, a sub-class of "have nots" who were used by the "haves" to make themselves ever wealthier?
A return to Victorian workhouses is really not moving humanity forward. You may not like welfare programmes, but in a capitalist society that also wants to be humanitarian, they are essential. There is no way that an "every man for himself" approach will work.
How about altruism?
When you get to the situation of earning $500,000 per year, you can afford to do a little more of the heavy lifting on taxes (proportional to your income) - Both the $500k guy and the guy earning $20k need to spend the same on food, gas, insurance etc but they are proportionally a much more massive expenditure for the poor.
When you reach $500k, whether you pay 30% or 32% in income tax really isn't going to make all that much of a difference to you in terms of your quality of life. It might just go a very long way to helping the society as a whole though, via benefit programs.
"Why should I get taxed to help this poor guy?" - because generally it's good to aspire to help those less fortunate than yourself, even if it is indirectly. A society should be judged on the way it treats its least well-off members.
I'm not advocating taxing the rich into the ground, but they can afford to pay more (proportionally) than the poor. Just because their 30% is a bigger literal dollar number than a poor person's 30% doesn't mean it's unfair to make the rich person pay 35%.
So a guy goes out to work, to try to pull himself up from a poor background - he can't afford college, so his options are limited. He needs to pay for the basics: food, shelter, transport for himself and any dependents he has. The jobs available to him are pretty low wage (with lobbyists fighting hard and spending a lot of money to keep the minimum wage low, low low, and fighting against any increase in rights for these sorts of workers: vacation pay, medical benefits etc).
He makes just enough to live paycheck to paycheck. If he loses his job (hey, the economy is tough!) he will lose his house, or perhaps die of starvation, unless he can find a soup kitchen. Instead he "sucks on the titty of your tax dollars" so that he doesn't die or lose his (very meagre) house while he struggles to find a job - along with the thousands of others all looking for the low wage jobs out there.
Even better, if he gets sick he is royally screwed in the US system. Even if he has a job, the sort of job he has won't have health insurance worth a crap, and if he ends up with a condition that could have easily been sorted with preventative care that he cannot afford, he eventually becomes disabled and unable to work.
You seem to be under the impression that people *like* living at the bottom of the barrel and think it's all sunshine and roses "sucking up your hard earned tax dollars".
Go play your Xbox 360, you clearly have no clue.
The data sets are out there in the public domain. At least 1 set is. You're free to do it yourself if you like.
No, he does not say those things at all. Read the article again, carefully.
...by saying the opposite of what you just said.
Did you actually read the article?
How exactly will moving to renewable energy, building homes/businesses that are more energy efficient and better insulated, reducing the carbon output of of major industries and moving toward more sustainable resource use "ruin" the civilisation?
One of the good things about "doing something about climate change" is that even if we turn out to be wrong (and it doesn't look like we are, but just for the sake of argument) then all of those things haven;t done any harm whatsoever, unless you count breaking the grip of the fossil fuel industry and energy companies who are relying on super cheap coal. Their profits will likely go down, but there's nothing to stop them investing in new tech - do you have any idea just how much money is spent on oil field exploration every year? It totally dwarfs the money spent on green power research.
Hell, if we swapped out every single coal plant for a nuclear one right now we would cut the amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere by a gigantic amount, and the amount of CO2. Two birds with one stone.
You can ask for a second opinion, and you are right to. I think you'll find the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists who have been studying the climate for the past 50 years or more will be happy to tell you all about it.
Well, in this case, they went with the more popular network (control freak issues of AT&T aside), which has more than twice the customers of Tmobile (as of 2007). This probably explains why they have been quite successful with the iPhone.
They are successful as a company because they make products that people actually want to buy, and have an excellent marketing department - the two essential sides of the coin. The control they exert in some areas of their products are not terrible enough (or not even a factor) for some people that they don;t matter. Obviously that matters to you, but the technical elite are not really the target market.
Apple does not hate its customers at all. In fact, they are all about the user experience, spending a lot of time and attention to detail on the hardware and software side of things. Just because the way they go about that doesn't mesh with what you personally want from a company does not mean they hate their customers.
There are other providers if you want an open cellphone platform - Apple simply doesn't cater to you. (Although iPhones in the UK are not tied to a network any more, now that the exclusive deal with O2 is over, and has always been able to tether).
I am *well aware* of the issues surrounding the birthers, however, it wouldn't have made a very god joke would it?
He doesn't have to release his private records if he doesn't want to - theres no "hearts and minds if [sic] idiots like me" to win. I'm British, living in the UK, so he doesn't gain anything by getting me on board.
No one (sensible) is just "taking Obama's word for it", there is considerable evidence showing where he was born.
Tell that to the birthers.
heh.
The Preview app in OS X itself is pretty speedy with PDFs - much better and faster that the official Adobe PDF reader for Mac. Preview is the best and fastest PDF viewer I have used in fact, but it is not perfect, especially with complex PDFs that have embedded things in like data entry fields and so on. It also sometimes has graphical glitches - but I have only ever seen this with PDFs created by InDesign CS, so it may be unique to the output from that particular app.
It uses Quartz in OS X for doing this, which is also used by the iPhone, so PDFs on there display exactly the same.
Your best bet would be to see how your PDFs, especially 1000+ page ones, behave in Preview - that is pretty much exactly what they will do on the iPad (but with a 1Ghz cpu). Take a USB stick down to an Apple store and have a go if you have one nearby (unless you already have a Mac).
I know I can take a huge PDF (200+ pages, so not as big as yours) and leaf through it very quickly with no screen lag in OS X in Preview. There is obviously going to be a performance hit on a 1Ghz cpu, but I can tell you the app itself is not cripplingly slow, sluggish or bloated like the Adobe PDF reader is.
Have you been living under a rock?
He's seriously the first person, on the internet or in the real world who has said more than "meh" in your presence?
My own experience has been mixed - about 30% have been very positive, about 50% have been "meh" and about 20% have been "no way, it's stupid".
On slashdot alone though, a lot of "meh" and a lot of "why doesn't it do [thing that netbook does]?"
Tablet PCs like that already existed long before the iPad. Why didn't you buy one of those?
The iPad also has a decent keyboard accessory - it's essentially an identical version to the bluetooth Apple keyboard I'm using right now, but with a dock built in to mate with the iPad. If you hate the MacBook Pro keyboard then you won't consider it "decent" but it is full size - just lacks a numberpad (like the one I'm using right now).
That is the argument that is often dismissed by people arguing *against* Apple - if you price up a Mac on features/price as was often the case - firewire, built in wireless, bundled software, gigE, bluetooth KB+mouse, webcam then the argument was always turned to bottom line price (back in the days before pretty much everything shipped with all those pieces on the motherboard as extra gravy - Apple were one of the first to ship computers with ethernet and wireless as standard, for example, and include FW even on the lowest models).
Not saying it's a bad argument - I'm sure that a tablet PC + netbook that share the same screen will have more features than the iPad, which is not even a tablet, but it cuts both ways. I can't imagine that it's going to be cheap though.
Steve Ballmer called. He wants to know if you want cash or cheque? He says he'll throw in a free chair if you want. Literally.
You just made his point very saliently. I know a lot of people who will buy one because it will do what they want.
It ships with iWork already on the app store, so it has a test [sic] editor right there if you want it - you can save iWork files as plaintext if you like. There will also doubtless be a plaintext editor with syntax highlighting like SEE or somesuch released on the App store when it actually ships. This "office" software (that you apparently can't run, according to you) can work with Word and Excel files, although ymmv depending on the features of the documents. iWork itself is not an MS Office killer, but it can work with Office formats, so you could compose something and save it in .doc format for later editing on your main machine with Office. I doubt we'll actually see a version of Office itself on there but you never know.
Mobile Safari, the browser used on the iPhone *does* support Javascript on the web - I assume that is what you meant, since you said "not even Web with flash or even Java", so I assume you are talking about javascript. It works on the iPhone OS, which the iPad runs so I see no reason that it would be disabled in the iPad version of Safari. Mouseover events are not supported, but then, there is no mouse on the iPad. Of course, there is no Flash, as is often discussed.
"Rationally" the iPad is clearly not for you, but you can't simply dismiss it as useless because it doesn't do the things you personally want and you can't think of any potential use for it.
It is very deliberately *not* a tablet PC - those exist already, and aren't really all that popular outside of niche applications.
I have no idea if it will take off, but it's not at all useless
GWB was born in Connecticut. The greatest trick his campaign team ever pulled was convincing the people he was Texan.
Maybe it was paid for by the people of Connecticut.