Me too. I look at my phone the same way as I look at my dishwasher or microwave. Yeah there may be a little computer running things behind the scene, but if the things are made well, the abstraction shouldn't leak that information.
You know who is incredibly popular? The gardening guy.
The gardening guy might be popular, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess he is popular in a demographic that doesn't attract a lot of advertisers. Sure, production costs might be low enough that his show turns a profit, but you have to consider opportunity costs as well. When they are broadcasting the gardening guy, they aren't broadcasting a Seinfeld rerun which is likely popular with a "better" demographic.
In the last ten years, I've lived in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast, and now I'm in Texas. If you turn on the local news in any city, they all look exactly the same. They have the same set design, the same color schemes, the same graphics, and the on air personalities are so similar it's weird.
Clearly they've all hired the same set of consultants and just copy from each other. It's really sad and is very similar to what newspapers did.
The local tv stations could go away and I wouldn't miss them. I could just turn on a station from any where else in the country and get the exact same experience.
One notable counter-example that I've seen is CityTV in Toronto. This was about 10 years ago, so things may have changed, but they definitely were trying some new tactics. I'd be curious to know what their broadcast looks like now.
To be fair though, back in the days when it required an.edu address to join, Facebook was much more private than it is now. Now, they constantly change their terms of service and make public what was once private. I think that's what has a lot of people upset.
What data are you talking about? Email addresses? Or the party photos your friend posted that have identified you with a helpful tag?
Or are you talking about the data they collect if you happen to forget to log out of Facebook and surf around to sites displaying the Facebook Connect button? IMHO, that's one of the most sinister ways that Facebook collects data. I suppose technically you are still volunteering the data because you didn't log out. After all, if you didn't want them to know about other sites you visit, you would have logged out, right?
PS. If you have something against publishing some of your personal info on FB...just don't give it to them.
That doesn't do much. If you have friends who post, just about everything is going to end up on there anyway.
Try this: sign up for Facebook with a new email account. Don't let them scrape your contacts. Add a few friends and wait. One day soon, you will log in and Facebook will show you a list of a bunch of email accounts and ask you which ones are yours. Most of them will be yours. It totally freaked me out.
I used to be worried about Google, but at this point, Facebook is far scarier.
They won't fire him. For one, he's a talented engineer. Those aren't exactly easy to find. Also, they aren't done going after the guy who sold the phone and the people bought the phone. They may need his testimony and employees tend to be much more cooperative than ex-employees.
A bunch of people are saying an iPad is an idiot device because it costs as much as a real computer but does less.
I was making the same statement about game consoles. Why buy one when a computer can play games just as well and do so many other things.
For the record, I have an iPad and a PS3.
I'm not worried about the future of computing. You still need a computer to write the iPad software on. I really think something like the iPad grows the market and only creates more opportunities for geeks like us.
I think the answer is a firm "it depends". If the application doesn't add anything significant over the browser experience, then I think you are right. Bad app.
On the other hand, if the developers take advantage of what makes the iPad unique (multi-touch interface, accelerometers, location services, etc...), you end up with a better experience and its worth the added complexity.
Lots of people by televisions and game consoles. These cost considerably more than $500 and arguably do a lot less. What's your point again?
$500 is an affordable price for a pretty large segment of the population. Couple that with the fact that there is so much software that you can get either for free or very inexpensively and you end up with a pretty cheap device that does quite a lot.
Buy a PS3 or an XBox and check out the price of their popular titles. Lots of games are $50 or even more. When I buy a game for my iPad, I consider $5 to be expensive.
This story is about the plunge in netbook sales. Netbook screens are usually pretty low res.
I'm not certain what the GP meant, but I know a lot of people have 17" laptops, then set the fonts to a rather large setting. So, it certainly is conceivable that for some, an iPad with small fonts will be readable because it's held close and this could very easy contain a similar amount of text as a larger or higher resolution screen set with large fonts kept farther away.
This is actually one of the things I'm a little bit worried about with the iPad. Rather than use the open, ubiquitous web, some are choosing to put up walls around their content by making it available through an app rather than the browser.
More likely though, I think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are generally working to get away from Flash and Silverlight. This, I think, is a good thing. There are enough iPad's out there to make moving away from Flash worthwhile, but not enough to make locking up the content in an app a good idea. I'm happy about this.
I have a netbook and an ipad and for me the ipad is a much, much better machine.
For one, it's battery life is astounding.
Secondly, the build quality is superb. It feels solid. The netbook in comparison is too flexible and feels very cheap.
Third, I like tools that do what they are designed to do well. For some, no flash is deal breaker. For me, I don't miss flash one iota.
I use the ipad for watching movies, email, surfing, reading, and games. In other words consuming content (ack - I hate that phrase). For these uses, it's hardly a crippled device. At least no more crippled than, say, a Nintendo DS or an XBox. Different devices, different uses. Personally, I'm a fan of simple tools that do a limited number of things well.
For some of us, programming is about recreation. Slashdot likes car analogies, so how about this: I know people who make money working on cars, and I have friends who do the same thing for themselves on the weekend because they enjoy it.
You know, there are lots of individuals and businesses whose business plan includes giving something away for free. It absolutely does help pay the bills.
It can be remotely administered via group policy settings (I don't know if Firefox can do this as well). If you work in a Microsoft environment in a large, distributed corporation, it might be a good choice.
There are lots of corporate desktops where the browser is the new VT100 terminal. No internet exposure and IE6 works well enough.
First of all, kids absolutely do want fast food for the toy. At least mine do. Whenever we are going out to eat and ask my kids what they want, it's McDonald's or Burger King.
Secondly, a lot of cities have very, very few choices for healthy food. Take a drive around Detroit's inner city some time and look for decent, affordable food. As of about a year ago, there were no grocery supermarkets in Detroit. When you are low on time and money, the dollar menu down the street starts to sound reasonable.
They don't block DNS requests, they just send all port 53 traffic to their DNS server.
There are a lot of areas with a single good internet option (where 'good' means decent bandwidth and latency). Jumping ship may not be a realistic option.
You think medical research is expensive? Check out what it costs to market a drug. Seriously. Drug companies spend far more marketing drugs than developing them.
Sometimes actions reveal intent, but I don't think it does in this case.
These researchers have apparently tried the attack described in TFA on themselves with no intent to defraud.
If you spoof caller id to trick a database, only a machine has been deceived (and that's arguable). What you do (or intend to do) next is the big question.
Slashdot Mirror
The web browsers on those phones are normally pretty awful.
Anybody who has a non-rooted iPhone has a smartphone appliance. Are they all doing it wrong?
Me too. I look at my phone the same way as I look at my dishwasher or microwave. Yeah there may be a little computer running things behind the scene, but if the things are made well, the abstraction shouldn't leak that information.
You know who is incredibly popular? The gardening guy.
The gardening guy might be popular, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess he is popular in a demographic that doesn't attract a lot of advertisers. Sure, production costs might be low enough that his show turns a profit, but you have to consider opportunity costs as well. When they are broadcasting the gardening guy, they aren't broadcasting a Seinfeld rerun which is likely popular with a "better" demographic.
In the last ten years, I've lived in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast, and now I'm in Texas. If you turn on the local news in any city, they all look exactly the same. They have the same set design, the same color schemes, the same graphics, and the on air personalities are so similar it's weird.
Clearly they've all hired the same set of consultants and just copy from each other. It's really sad and is very similar to what newspapers did.
The local tv stations could go away and I wouldn't miss them. I could just turn on a station from any where else in the country and get the exact same experience.
One notable counter-example that I've seen is CityTV in Toronto. This was about 10 years ago, so things may have changed, but they definitely were trying some new tactics. I'd be curious to know what their broadcast looks like now.
To be fair though, back in the days when it required an .edu address to join, Facebook was much more private than it is now. Now, they constantly change their terms of service and make public what was once private. I think that's what has a lot of people upset.
What data are you talking about? Email addresses? Or the party photos your friend posted that have identified you with a helpful tag?
Or are you talking about the data they collect if you happen to forget to log out of Facebook and surf around to sites displaying the Facebook Connect button? IMHO, that's one of the most sinister ways that Facebook collects data. I suppose technically you are still volunteering the data because you didn't log out. After all, if you didn't want them to know about other sites you visit, you would have logged out, right?
PS. If you have something against publishing some of your personal info on FB...just don't give it to them.
That doesn't do much. If you have friends who post, just about everything is going to end up on there anyway.
Try this: sign up for Facebook with a new email account. Don't let them scrape your contacts. Add a few friends and wait. One day soon, you will log in and Facebook will show you a list of a bunch of email accounts and ask you which ones are yours. Most of them will be yours. It totally freaked me out.
I used to be worried about Google, but at this point, Facebook is far scarier.
They won't fire him. For one, he's a talented engineer. Those aren't exactly easy to find. Also, they aren't done going after the guy who sold the phone and the people bought the phone. They may need his testimony and employees tend to be much more cooperative than ex-employees.
No, I think I wasn't clear.
A bunch of people are saying an iPad is an idiot device because it costs as much as a real computer but does less.
I was making the same statement about game consoles. Why buy one when a computer can play games just as well and do so many other things.
For the record, I have an iPad and a PS3.
I'm not worried about the future of computing. You still need a computer to write the iPad software on. I really think something like the iPad grows the market and only creates more opportunities for geeks like us.
Actually, I think the video card on my desktop machine will also toast bread.
I think the answer is a firm "it depends". If the application doesn't add anything significant over the browser experience, then I think you are right. Bad app.
On the other hand, if the developers take advantage of what makes the iPad unique (multi-touch interface, accelerometers, location services, etc...), you end up with a better experience and its worth the added complexity.
TV + game console > $500
Lots of people by televisions and game consoles. These cost considerably more than $500 and arguably do a lot less. What's your point again?
$500 is an affordable price for a pretty large segment of the population. Couple that with the fact that there is so much software that you can get either for free or very inexpensively and you end up with a pretty cheap device that does quite a lot.
Buy a PS3 or an XBox and check out the price of their popular titles. Lots of games are $50 or even more. When I buy a game for my iPad, I consider $5 to be expensive.
This story is about the plunge in netbook sales. Netbook screens are usually pretty low res.
I'm not certain what the GP meant, but I know a lot of people have 17" laptops, then set the fonts to a rather large setting. So, it certainly is conceivable that for some, an iPad with small fonts will be readable because it's held close and this could very easy contain a similar amount of text as a larger or higher resolution screen set with large fonts kept farther away.
There's an app for that:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rotten-tomatoes/id342598232?mt=8
This is actually one of the things I'm a little bit worried about with the iPad. Rather than use the open, ubiquitous web, some are choosing to put up walls around their content by making it available through an app rather than the browser.
More likely though, I think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are generally working to get away from Flash and Silverlight. This, I think, is a good thing. There are enough iPad's out there to make moving away from Flash worthwhile, but not enough to make locking up the content in an app a good idea. I'm happy about this.
I have a netbook and an ipad and for me the ipad is a much, much better machine.
For one, it's battery life is astounding.
Secondly, the build quality is superb. It feels solid. The netbook in comparison is too flexible and feels very cheap.
Third, I like tools that do what they are designed to do well. For some, no flash is deal breaker. For me, I don't miss flash one iota.
I use the ipad for watching movies, email, surfing, reading, and games. In other words consuming content (ack - I hate that phrase). For these uses, it's hardly a crippled device. At least no more crippled than, say, a Nintendo DS or an XBox. Different devices, different uses. Personally, I'm a fan of simple tools that do a limited number of things well.
For some of us, programming is about recreation. Slashdot likes car analogies, so how about this: I know people who make money working on cars, and I have friends who do the same thing for themselves on the weekend because they enjoy it.
You know, there are lots of individuals and businesses whose business plan includes giving something away for free. It absolutely does help pay the bills.
It can be remotely administered via group policy settings (I don't know if Firefox can do this as well). If you work in a Microsoft environment in a large, distributed corporation, it might be a good choice.
There are lots of corporate desktops where the browser is the new VT100 terminal. No internet exposure and IE6 works well enough.
First of all, kids absolutely do want fast food for the toy. At least mine do. Whenever we are going out to eat and ask my kids what they want, it's McDonald's or Burger King.
Secondly, a lot of cities have very, very few choices for healthy food. Take a drive around Detroit's inner city some time and look for decent, affordable food. As of about a year ago, there were no grocery supermarkets in Detroit. When you are low on time and money, the dollar menu down the street starts to sound reasonable.
ec
When you buy an internet connection, I would say there is an implied warranty of merchantability that includes integrity of communication.
You should be able to assume that your inbound and outbound internet traffic isn't effectively altered.
Or they will just put their cert into your browser so they can "optimize your web experience".
They don't block DNS requests, they just send all port 53 traffic to their DNS server.
There are a lot of areas with a single good internet option (where 'good' means decent bandwidth and latency). Jumping ship may not be a realistic option.
You think medical research is expensive? Check out what it costs to market a drug. Seriously. Drug companies spend far more marketing drugs than developing them.
Sometimes actions reveal intent, but I don't think it does in this case.
These researchers have apparently tried the attack described in TFA on themselves with no intent to defraud.
If you spoof caller id to trick a database, only a machine has been deceived (and that's arguable). What you do (or intend to do) next is the big question.
I believe it depends on the intent.
You can still spoof as long as you aren't doing so to deceive or defraud.