That sounds terrible. I want what an AC said, the super-powerful tablet that is easily docked and immediately starts acting like a desktop computer when I want it to.
The appliance model is a waste of money and resources - not just raw materials, but R&D. And the appliance model doesn't even last in the wild. Cell phones took about five years to be "ubiquitous, but just a phone" to "ubiquitous, and I can debug code on them".
Consumers have pretty clearly demonstrated a desire for one object that does everything; yes, my home has a work laptop, a home laptop, and an Android smartphone. Is that contradictory? Nah. I'd argue the marketplace hasn't yet evolved into offering that single omnidevice, so instead we have different products that do 90% of what the other devices do, and 10% is something special.
We'll get there, but I don't think it'll happen in five years, and I think it's going to look a lot more like a laptop with a bunch of modular accessories than a flat sheet that remains as it is.
I have to do that several times a week, at least. And maybe you haven't performed that specific task, but fast switching between applications, and bringing over data from one to the other, is just tougher to do with a touch screen than a keyboard + mouse, and it's pretty common in a business setting.
Copy a few cells in your favorite spreadsheet program, then paste those cells into your favorite word processor, in a tablet. Format it with headers in a different font and color. Then, do that at a desktop computer with keyboard and mouse. Which was easier?
I know that tablet technology is rapidly changing, but once you have a big enough screen to capably handle windowing, you've basically got a laptop without a keyboard, not a tablet. And who wants that for business use?
That's a good point that I didn't address in my earlier post..the casual user who uses their computer for 30 minutes of e-mail and Facebook a day is also one of the last people to completely scrap existing technology for a entirely new format.
Some of them may buy a tablet in addition to their "real computer", but as for the Fall of Wintel, I'd say not yet.
But I also give it 3-4 years before Google has a desktop/laptop version of Android.
Tablets, in the style of the iPad or the recent Android models, just aren't useful for 8-10 hours of real work. I would say that almost anyone who has to work on a computer for their job needs to have more than one window open, too. It's hard to pull that off and maintain any level of productivity on a 7" or 10" screen.
I'm thinking of getting one to bring to meetings and such as a replacement for my bulky laptop, since I can type notes faster than I can write them (plus being able to record what's going on is great), but that would only be to make my "real work", back in my office, at a desktop computer, easier. I don't see how manufacturers can get around that while still keeping a tablet look and feel.
For home use? Sure, it's a great alternative for many people, mainly the e-mail, Facebook and Skype-only types.
The problem is that #1 and #2 don't happen regularly, and it's easier to attach a $5 speaker to a car than to hope human nature transforms in response to electric cars becoming more available.
Yes. Nobody will be able to figure out how to attach a small speaker to a car and make it beep when the car is below a certain speed. Damn you, big oil.
"A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye."
Swerve where? Out of the bike lane, into the automobile traffic lane, while having no time to look and see if it's clear? I'll take the car door in my face, thanks.
And, of course, there are plenty of anecdotes where the racist joins the military, goes to war with black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish soldiers, and realizes within a week what an ignorant ass he's been.
I'm not in the military, but I have friends and family who were/are. I can't think of a class of the US population less likely to be racist (well...maybe Islamophobic, which is, of course, bad) than those who have done active duty. I imagine the same thing would happen with gays and lesbians vs. homophobes.
You realize that by "military leaders", they mean, like, the people on the Sunday morning news programs, and not a bunch of NCOs, right?
The military leaders we're talking about are either Obama appointees or serve in their role because of the approval of Obama appointees. The law was written that way to try to quiet McCain's whining about micromanaging the military (I fucking wish we did), not to be functionally different from an outright ban.
It was less homophobic than what happened before DADT (where the government would investigate people to find out if they were gay).
Don't Ask, Don't Tell kept the rule on the books but removed the ability for the military to do any proactive investigating. It was a midpoint compromise that sucked. (Like desegregating the military but not the civilian federal government, back in the 1940s.) Clinton wasn't very happy about it and originally wanted to repeal the ban altogether but would have had maybe ten votes for that.
You're maybe forgetting how homophobic 1993 still was. It wasn't until a few years after that Ellen DeGeneres could refer to herself as a lesbian on TV without getting banned by the network.
We probably will have another president that homophobic, but after years of out gays and lesbians serving, fighting, and moving up through the ranks, there would be no inertia whatsoever to kick people out, especially all at once.
One more thing: The Mississippi and Missouri rivers would effectively be useless for shipping anything through the Gulf because the South planned on either banning or taxing the shit out of everything coming from the North down the Mississippi. Yes, there was rail, but barges are dead simple and cheap, and getting things to New Orleans from the Midwest or Plains was a hell of a lot easier than rail to the Atlantic. So, big economic inefficiencies just as the US was starting to be a global power. (Of course, we wouldn't be a global power as easily with half the land and no cotton.)
The northern states would probably be better off, on paper at least, all other things being equal.
The southern states themselves, and oh yeah, all the black people inside of them? Not so much. Also, there would have been multiple civil wars. Do you really think the USA and CSA would have come to a nice, happy agreement on who gets to have California, Kansas, the Interior West, etc? And, the South had plans of aggressively taking Spanish and French territories in the Caribbean that would have likely resulted in British intervention. Remember, they were rooting for the Confederates partly because they were banking on the Southern states being too fragmented to form a union, and then Britain's got colonies again. So, proto-World War opportunities there, plus an outside chance of Spain or France (especially France) grabbing some pieces of land in the South again if the wars went badly. Not good for the USA.
Finally, the slave states that remained in the Union would have had widespread rioting and private militias backed by former slaveholders, who saw slavery banned in 1863. They would have wanted to join the Confederacy. Basically, guerrilla warfare in Baltimore and St. Louis.
While this is true, it's true of plenty of other software, and they make it pretty clear what's going on and what they send. Hell, they named it SpyNet!
For those not able to check right now, it sends: Where the malware came from, what you chose to do or what MSE did for you, (ignore/quarantine/delete), and whether it worked. Yes, sending that info might get personal data as collateral damage (they'll know you downloaded preteenbj.exe, and probably the file path), but that is by no means a new level of information sharing for automated info dumps.
Worth noting that MsMpEng is truly just "sitting there", unlike Norton or McAfee (or even the good guys like Avast) where there's random, unneeded churn. The only time so far I've seen it have any CPU usage was when I tried to close it with Task Manager and MSE popped up a warning asking me to restart the service.
My (mid-range) laptop is only a year old, but I can say that I notice no difference between MSE 2 and MSE 1 for speed, either while scanning or while lurking in the background. So, I'd say go for it.
Thank you. I use easy passwords all the time for crap like this. Why waste one of my strong but easy-for-me-to-remember passwords on something that doesn't actually have any connection to my personal life or my money?
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds terrible. I want what an AC said, the super-powerful tablet that is easily docked and immediately starts acting like a desktop computer when I want it to.
The appliance model is a waste of money and resources - not just raw materials, but R&D. And the appliance model doesn't even last in the wild. Cell phones took about five years to be "ubiquitous, but just a phone" to "ubiquitous, and I can debug code on them".
Consumers have pretty clearly demonstrated a desire for one object that does everything; yes, my home has a work laptop, a home laptop, and an Android smartphone. Is that contradictory? Nah. I'd argue the marketplace hasn't yet evolved into offering that single omnidevice, so instead we have different products that do 90% of what the other devices do, and 10% is something special.
We'll get there, but I don't think it'll happen in five years, and I think it's going to look a lot more like a laptop with a bunch of modular accessories than a flat sheet that remains as it is.
Ah. Yeah, I'd be totally for that. I'd also like a touchscreen, AND a keyboard, AND a mouse.
Me too, but I don't have arthritis.
I have to do that several times a week, at least. And maybe you haven't performed that specific task, but fast switching between applications, and bringing over data from one to the other, is just tougher to do with a touch screen than a keyboard + mouse, and it's pretty common in a business setting.
That's a laptop without a hinge, so I have to go find something to support the screen. At the airport, that isn't happening.
No! This is completely untrue!
Copy a few cells in your favorite spreadsheet program, then paste those cells into your favorite word processor, in a tablet. Format it with headers in a different font and color. Then, do that at a desktop computer with keyboard and mouse. Which was easier?
I know that tablet technology is rapidly changing, but once you have a big enough screen to capably handle windowing, you've basically got a laptop without a keyboard, not a tablet. And who wants that for business use?
That's a good point that I didn't address in my earlier post..the casual user who uses their computer for 30 minutes of e-mail and Facebook a day is also one of the last people to completely scrap existing technology for a entirely new format.
Some of them may buy a tablet in addition to their "real computer", but as for the Fall of Wintel, I'd say not yet.
But I also give it 3-4 years before Google has a desktop/laptop version of Android.
Tablets, in the style of the iPad or the recent Android models, just aren't useful for 8-10 hours of real work. I would say that almost anyone who has to work on a computer for their job needs to have more than one window open, too. It's hard to pull that off and maintain any level of productivity on a 7" or 10" screen.
I'm thinking of getting one to bring to meetings and such as a replacement for my bulky laptop, since I can type notes faster than I can write them (plus being able to record what's going on is great), but that would only be to make my "real work", back in my office, at a desktop computer, easier. I don't see how manufacturers can get around that while still keeping a tablet look and feel.
For home use? Sure, it's a great alternative for many people, mainly the e-mail, Facebook and Skype-only types.
Probably way late, but the car noises are being lobbied for by the American Federation for the Blind.
Ah. Is this where you discovered the trisexual puppies?
Seriously, log into a different account if you're going to try to be a tough guy.
Yeah, these blind motherfuckers are ruining it for Good Americans. Fuck them and their medical condition.
The problem is that #1 and #2 don't happen regularly, and it's easier to attach a $5 speaker to a car than to hope human nature transforms in response to electric cars becoming more available.
Yes. Nobody will be able to figure out how to attach a small speaker to a car and make it beep when the car is below a certain speed. Damn you, big oil.
"A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye."
Swerve where? Out of the bike lane, into the automobile traffic lane, while having no time to look and see if it's clear? I'll take the car door in my face, thanks.
And, of course, there are plenty of anecdotes where the racist joins the military, goes to war with black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish soldiers, and realizes within a week what an ignorant ass he's been.
I'm not in the military, but I have friends and family who were/are. I can't think of a class of the US population less likely to be racist (well...maybe Islamophobic, which is, of course, bad) than those who have done active duty. I imagine the same thing would happen with gays and lesbians vs. homophobes.
You realize that by "military leaders", they mean, like, the people on the Sunday morning news programs, and not a bunch of NCOs, right?
The military leaders we're talking about are either Obama appointees or serve in their role because of the approval of Obama appointees. The law was written that way to try to quiet McCain's whining about micromanaging the military (I fucking wish we did), not to be functionally different from an outright ban.
Shit, I rescind my clearly inferior post saying basically the same thing you just did. :)
It was less homophobic than what happened before DADT (where the government would investigate people to find out if they were gay).
Don't Ask, Don't Tell kept the rule on the books but removed the ability for the military to do any proactive investigating. It was a midpoint compromise that sucked. (Like desegregating the military but not the civilian federal government, back in the 1940s.) Clinton wasn't very happy about it and originally wanted to repeal the ban altogether but would have had maybe ten votes for that.
You're maybe forgetting how homophobic 1993 still was. It wasn't until a few years after that Ellen DeGeneres could refer to herself as a lesbian on TV without getting banned by the network.
We probably will have another president that homophobic, but after years of out gays and lesbians serving, fighting, and moving up through the ranks, there would be no inertia whatsoever to kick people out, especially all at once.
One more thing: The Mississippi and Missouri rivers would effectively be useless for shipping anything through the Gulf because the South planned on either banning or taxing the shit out of everything coming from the North down the Mississippi. Yes, there was rail, but barges are dead simple and cheap, and getting things to New Orleans from the Midwest or Plains was a hell of a lot easier than rail to the Atlantic. So, big economic inefficiencies just as the US was starting to be a global power. (Of course, we wouldn't be a global power as easily with half the land and no cotton.)
The northern states would probably be better off, on paper at least, all other things being equal.
The southern states themselves, and oh yeah, all the black people inside of them? Not so much.
Also, there would have been multiple civil wars. Do you really think the USA and CSA would have come to a nice, happy agreement on who gets to have California, Kansas, the Interior West, etc?
And, the South had plans of aggressively taking Spanish and French territories in the Caribbean that would have likely resulted in British intervention. Remember, they were rooting for the Confederates partly because they were banking on the Southern states being too fragmented to form a union, and then Britain's got colonies again. So, proto-World War opportunities there, plus an outside chance of Spain or France (especially France) grabbing some pieces of land in the South again if the wars went badly. Not good for the USA.
Finally, the slave states that remained in the Union would have had widespread rioting and private militias backed by former slaveholders, who saw slavery banned in 1863. They would have wanted to join the Confederacy. Basically, guerrilla warfare in Baltimore and St. Louis.
Still sound like a sweet deal for the Union?
While this is true, it's true of plenty of other software, and they make it pretty clear what's going on and what they send. Hell, they named it SpyNet!
For those not able to check right now, it sends: Where the malware came from, what you chose to do or what MSE did for you, (ignore/quarantine/delete), and whether it worked. Yes, sending that info might get personal data as collateral damage (they'll know you downloaded preteenbj.exe, and probably the file path), but that is by no means a new level of information sharing for automated info dumps.
Worth noting that MsMpEng is truly just "sitting there", unlike Norton or McAfee (or even the good guys like Avast) where there's random, unneeded churn. The only time so far I've seen it have any CPU usage was when I tried to close it with Task Manager and MSE popped up a warning asking me to restart the service.
My (mid-range) laptop is only a year old, but I can say that I notice no difference between MSE 2 and MSE 1 for speed, either while scanning or while lurking in the background. So, I'd say go for it.
Thank you. I use easy passwords all the time for crap like this. Why waste one of my strong but easy-for-me-to-remember passwords on something that doesn't actually have any connection to my personal life or my money?