I'm not convinced about this. Okay, sure you can do more than one thing at once. How many of them can you do well, though?
If you think you can multitask at the same level of performance you can single-task, then answer that question about somebody else. Maybe that somebody who's putting on her makeup while she drives... How well is she multitasking?
I guarantee, if you're checking your email and flirting via AIM during class, you're NOT getting the full value of the class.
I can't even stomach lynx for day-to-day browsing issues, for crying out loud. I can't fathom how a spoken-text browser will be useable at all!?
Any site that uses an imagemap for a navigation bar will be utterly hopeless for use with this thing.
Now, I can see this being of reasonable value to blind people, though there are already several solutions for web accessibility for the blind. And by and large, blind people don't drive...
In the early days of personal websites (out of which the phenomenon of Blogging emerged) it was this great breakthrough thing--EVERYBODY gets to be a journalist.
So instead of securing vulnerable and critical systems, we're going to monitor THE WHOLE INTERNET. Okay... That sounds like a plan...
Setting the civil liberties nightmare aside for a second, and even assuming the terrorist threat to the computing infrastructure is real and justifies this level of response, this approach is just bad policy. This is yet another expression of our Cowboy President's locker-room-towel-snapping "let's go get them bad dudes" mentality. Any IT security professional will tell you this aproach is precisely backwards.
Re:could be safer than rolercoaster
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Oh, relax. Any company would have done this. It's not that Apple is evil. They're defending their ability to unveil their product in the way that they feel is best, and protecting their rights under an NDA.
Maybe the real story here is how people feel a moral and emotional "ownership" of Apple that has them react with revulsion when Apple behaves like the for-profit company that they are!
You're assuming that consumers see mobile devices as investments, the way they currently see (wisely or not) their desktop machines.
People are upset when they find out their top-of-the-line box is outrun by a $500 machine within six months, because they dropped some scratch on it and expect it to be around for a while. Not so with mobile devices. It's about form and function right now. It's about what it does and how small a pocket I can fit that into.
My mother is interested in what her cell phone does right now. She has no interest in the hypothetical ability to make it do something else when Codec X comes down the pike.
Not that simple. I had this same problem, and no matter what I tried, no "Yahoo Mobile Device" I created could ever grok that there was ALREADY a record in a database somewhere instructing them to SMSpam that same number on a daily basis.
I successfully signed up for and then cancelled THE SAME MESSAGE SERVICE for my phone--and for the couple days it was active, successfully received two messages. My phone happily collapsed those into one message, with a "removing duplicates" warning.
Whatever else is going on, Yahoo does NOT require that a "Mobile Device" have a unique phone number. Or at least, didn't at the time I was trying this.
Fortunately, the volume of messages I was getting was nowhere near my monthly limit. I got pretty quick at ignoring them. A few months later they started getting inconsistent--skipping one or two days on occasion. Eventually they just petered out, and I haven't had one now in over a year.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not convinced about this. Okay, sure you can do more than one thing at once. How many of them can you do well, though?
If you think you can multitask at the same level of performance you can single-task, then answer that question about somebody else. Maybe that somebody who's putting on her makeup while she drives... How well is she multitasking?
I guarantee, if you're checking your email and flirting via AIM during class, you're NOT getting the full value of the class.
What qualities do you rate as essential for a good sysadmin?
In rough order of importance:
Aptitude.
...
Is it just me, or is that a somewhat circular choice for first on the list? What IS aptitude, but the qualities essential for the purpose?
I can't even stomach lynx for day-to-day browsing issues, for crying out loud. I can't fathom how a spoken-text browser will be useable at all!?
Any site that uses an imagemap for a navigation bar will be utterly hopeless for use with this thing.
Now, I can see this being of reasonable value to blind people, though there are already several solutions for web accessibility for the blind. And by and large, blind people don't drive...
Am I the only one for whom search engine wars feel charmingly retro? How 90's!
In the early days of personal websites (out of which the phenomenon of Blogging emerged) it was this great breakthrough thing--EVERYBODY gets to be a journalist.
Nowadays everybody HAS to be a journalist!
So instead of securing vulnerable and critical systems, we're going to monitor THE WHOLE INTERNET. Okay... That sounds like a plan...
Setting the civil liberties nightmare aside for a second, and even assuming the terrorist threat to the computing infrastructure is real and justifies this level of response, this approach is just bad policy. This is yet another expression of our Cowboy President's locker-room-towel-snapping "let's go get them bad dudes" mentality. Any IT security professional will tell you this aproach is precisely backwards.
Sure. Until it flings you across the room....
Oh, relax. Any company would have done this. It's not that Apple is evil. They're defending their ability to unveil their product in the way that they feel is best, and protecting their rights under an NDA.
Maybe the real story here is how people feel a moral and emotional "ownership" of Apple that has them react with revulsion when Apple behaves like the for-profit company that they are!
You're assuming that consumers see mobile devices as investments, the way they currently see (wisely or not) their desktop machines.
People are upset when they find out their top-of-the-line box is outrun by a $500 machine within six months, because they dropped some scratch on it and expect it to be around for a while. Not so with mobile devices. It's about form and function right now. It's about what it does and how small a pocket I can fit that into.
My mother is interested in what her cell phone does right now. She has no interest in the hypothetical ability to make it do something else when Codec X comes down the pike.
Not that simple. I had this same problem, and no matter what I tried, no "Yahoo Mobile Device" I created could ever grok that there was ALREADY a record in a database somewhere instructing them to SMSpam that same number on a daily basis.
I successfully signed up for and then cancelled THE SAME MESSAGE SERVICE for my phone--and for the couple days it was active, successfully received two messages. My phone happily collapsed those into one message, with a "removing duplicates" warning.
Whatever else is going on, Yahoo does NOT require that a "Mobile Device" have a unique phone number. Or at least, didn't at the time I was trying this.
Fortunately, the volume of messages I was getting was nowhere near my monthly limit. I got pretty quick at ignoring them. A few months later they started getting inconsistent--skipping one or two days on occasion. Eventually they just petered out, and I haven't had one now in over a year.