So, I'd venture to guess that they're actually a lot more used than Siri is. I have a hard time believing that Siri is so used that it's been used more in 4 months than Google Voice in a couple years.
Oh, easily. By an order of magnitude or two. Siri is the number one feature on the latest version of the worlds most popular smartphone. There are TV adverts about Siri around the world. Google Voice, personally I hadn't even heard of it till you mentioned it. Looking it up, it seems like one of the many web services Google try out for a couple of years, then drop because few people are interested.
And in America of course his election expenses are mostly paid for by the corporations. That's a more pressing form of corruption. Yes corruption - corporations paying money to both parties so whoever wins they get better treatment at the expense of the public. What else can it be called than corruption - even if it's not been made illegal.
(And of course although it's obviously unethical, politicians aren't going to make it illegal!)
Of course it's fair. You expect to gain when the company does well. Often that success is partly from a corporation flouting the law and getting away with it. Well, a stockholder should be taking both sides of the risk. How else can we expect AGMs to vote for better governance?
Why are you describing a hypothetical patent? This story is about a particular patent, and it's not one of those "... on a phone" patents. The patent refers to the invention on a computer.
The question os whether it is novel or not is what the entire patent system is about.
I don't know whether its novel or not, but the first time I saw the system described was indeed on an Apple Mac.
If you're saying it isn't novel, then you need to point to prior art. The idea that it seems obvious now, some time after you've seen heard about it, is not enough. The wheel seems obvious, but it didn't occur to generations of man.
They say homophobia is caused by a repression of homosexuality in oneself. Given that about half your posts contain aggressive homosexual imagery involving Steve Jobs, not only do we have a pointer to your sexuality, but also the object of your attraction. Perhaps your shrillness is a reaction to his recent death.
A friend of mine works as a sub-editor for a national newspaper. He says they don't care about copyright. If they have an image, they'll use it. If there's any copyright claim later, they have lawyers to deal with that.
And yes, you could argue that the iPad killed the netbook market, but personally if I see a colleague desperately trying to take notes during a meeting with his iPad, I certainly feel more pity for him than envy. Why use a iPad for taking notes when you could easily be using a Macbook Pro, a Chromebook/Notebowook, or simply a pen and paper (sometimes even any ballpoint pen plus a napkin would be better).
The negative of using laptops at meetings is it's like everybody builds a little wall in front of themselves. Meetings are supposed to bring people together to communicate, but laptops distance them.
And people have all sorts of different types of meetings, but unless you're the one taking minutes, I don't find there's much note taking to be done. Jot down the odd diary date, and the odd to-do.
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3
Not at all. I don't know Gnome3. I'm arguing against the idea that when a developer comes to an alternative, he delegates that decision to the user, rather than coming to a decision himself. I'm arguing against having some "big scary control panel" which controls all the details of a UI.
Some configurability is sometimes needed. Again using the car metaphor - people are different sizes, so adjusting the seat is a important.
But generally speaking developers should endeavour to reduce the number of options that software has, not expand on them.
Worst of all is "skins". Complete waste of time - it's just bling.
I agree with you that change for changes sake is pointless. I think everybody would agree with that. But often the changes that people complain about are changes that are not pointless.
So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).
As I say I can't comment on Gnome3. But to use your example there are many cases of countries switching from right-hand drive to left-hand drive. It makes it easier at borders if two countries drive on the same side. So that's a compatibility justification.
But there are other sorts of changes - for example stick-shift to automatic. It requires the user to do less, whilst the machine does more. At the cost of a few hours of getting used to the change in interface.
Somebody gave me an iPad, it's great for the kids to surf YouTube on, but absolutely sucks for typing
Tablet only when you want to surf. Keyboard case when you want to do more typing.
iPad killed Flash too. It's in it's dead throes.
(Who needs that? Start with: Ticket to Read, SpellingCity.com, etc.)
Teaching kids to read and write? There's an app for that. Actually there's a lot of apps for that. And they are all the better for a touch screen allowing direct manipulation.
Why not... big scary controll panel... GConf... if you knew what you were doing with it... grandma standard... powertools... Put up a warning... may break the interface... scare off the grandma users... only those who really know what they're doing... need concern themselves with it.
Hmm. Interesting phrases.
When the developers can't decide how something should work, when they have two what seem like equally good or equally bad ideas
Do some user testing to see which works better.
why should they force one particular decision on the user?
Force is a strange choice of word. No doubt in your car, the right hand pedal is the accelerator, and to the left of it is the brake. The indicator stem might be on the right of the wheel, or it might be on the left. Do you feel "forced" by whoever it was that chose to put them that way around? Do you demand the ability to customise the location of those controls?
If they like to take things apart with a screwdriver, and successfully put them back together again, they might be interested in robotics. If they are more interested in football or dancing around with a tutu, then it's probably not for them.
With pre-iOS 5 devices, new OS versions are auto-downloaded by iTunes and offered for installation the next time they connect to a PC/Mac and sync. Either those 3 iAds haven't been synced for a while, or the owners said no when offered.
From iOS 5 onwards they don't even need to connect to a computer. Updates are over the air.
heck, with the right instructions people could root their phones and install the latest version of android
So on the one hand your pointing out that people aren't doing auto-updating. But somehow you think they'll do do rooting, finding suitable builds (if only they were available) and manual installation. You haven't really thought it out.
More accurately, people tend to buy iPhones because they are better, and they are happy to pay a little more for something that's better. Same thing goes for apps. With the typical app costing 99c, it's such a little amount of money, it's worth spending that rather than getting something worse that's free.
It's the difference between people that want value and people that want cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I'd venture to guess that they're actually a lot more used than Siri is. I have a hard time believing that Siri is so used that it's been used more in 4 months than Google Voice in a couple years.
Oh, easily. By an order of magnitude or two. Siri is the number one feature on the latest version of the worlds most popular smartphone. There are TV adverts about Siri around the world. Google Voice, personally I hadn't even heard of it till you mentioned it. Looking it up, it seems like one of the many web services Google try out for a couple of years, then drop because few people are interested.
And in America of course his election expenses are mostly paid for by the corporations. That's a more pressing form of corruption. Yes corruption - corporations paying money to both parties so whoever wins they get better treatment at the expense of the public. What else can it be called than corruption - even if it's not been made illegal.
(And of course although it's obviously unethical, politicians aren't going to make it illegal!)
Of course it's fair. You expect to gain when the company does well. Often that success is partly from a corporation flouting the law and getting away with it. Well, a stockholder should be taking both sides of the risk. How else can we expect AGMs to vote for better governance?
Why are you describing a hypothetical patent? This story is about a particular patent, and it's not one of those "... on a phone" patents. The patent refers to the invention on a computer.
The question os whether it is novel or not is what the entire patent system is about.
I don't know whether its novel or not, but the first time I saw the system described was indeed on an Apple Mac.
If you're saying it isn't novel, then you need to point to prior art. The idea that it seems obvious now, some time after you've seen heard about it, is not enough. The wheel seems obvious, but it didn't occur to generations of man.
They say homophobia is caused by a repression of homosexuality in oneself. Given that about half your posts contain aggressive homosexual imagery involving Steve Jobs, not only do we have a pointer to your sexuality, but also the object of your attraction. Perhaps your shrillness is a reaction to his recent death.
"Novel : new and not resembling something formerly known or used"
Everything man has created was once novel.
i think you, like the USPTO, have confused "invented" with "implemented".
Nope. It has to be invented before it can be implemented.
Whether or not software should be patentable is a separate matter.
Well someone must have invented it, otherwise it wouldn't exist in any product.
A friend of mine works as a sub-editor for a national newspaper. He says they don't care about copyright. If they have an image, they'll use it. If there's any copyright claim later, they have lawyers to deal with that.
And yes, you could argue that the iPad killed the netbook market, but personally if I see a colleague desperately trying to take notes during a meeting with his iPad, I certainly feel more pity for him than envy. Why use a iPad for taking notes when you could easily be using a Macbook Pro, a Chromebook/Notebowook, or simply a pen and paper (sometimes even any ballpoint pen plus a napkin would be better).
The negative of using laptops at meetings is it's like everybody builds a little wall in front of themselves. Meetings are supposed to bring people together to communicate, but laptops distance them.
And people have all sorts of different types of meetings, but unless you're the one taking minutes, I don't find there's much note taking to be done. Jot down the odd diary date, and the odd to-do.
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3
Not at all. I don't know Gnome3. I'm arguing against the idea that when a developer comes to an alternative, he delegates that decision to the user, rather than coming to a decision himself. I'm arguing against having some "big scary control panel" which controls all the details of a UI.
Some configurability is sometimes needed. Again using the car metaphor - people are different sizes, so adjusting the seat is a important.
But generally speaking developers should endeavour to reduce the number of options that software has, not expand on them.
Worst of all is "skins". Complete waste of time - it's just bling.
I agree with you that change for changes sake is pointless. I think everybody would agree with that. But often the changes that people complain about are changes that are not pointless.
So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).
As I say I can't comment on Gnome3. But to use your example there are many cases of countries switching from right-hand drive to left-hand drive. It makes it easier at borders if two countries drive on the same side. So that's a compatibility justification.
But there are other sorts of changes - for example stick-shift to automatic. It requires the user to do less, whilst the machine does more. At the cost of a few hours of getting used to the change in interface.
Somebody gave me an iPad, it's great for the kids to surf YouTube on, but absolutely sucks for typing
Tablet only when you want to surf. Keyboard case when you want to do more typing.
iPad killed Flash too. It's in it's dead throes.
(Who needs that? Start with: Ticket to Read, SpellingCity.com, etc.)
Teaching kids to read and write? There's an app for that. Actually there's a lot of apps for that. And they are all the better for a touch screen allowing direct manipulation.
Definition of an ultrabook: A MacBook Air copy.
Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Acer continue with their Aspire One line either.
One domino always has to be the first to fall.
If you travel a lot, and need a computer primarily for office apps and web browsing, then nothing beats a netbook.
A Macbook Air does.
Reminds me of their "Dell DJ" attempt at competing with the iPod.
iPad killed the netbook market.
Why not... big scary controll panel... GConf... if you knew what you were doing with it... grandma standard... powertools... Put up a warning... may break the interface... scare off the grandma users... only those who really know what they're doing... need concern themselves with it.
Hmm. Interesting phrases.
When the developers can't decide how something should work, when they have two what seem like equally good or equally bad ideas
Do some user testing to see which works better.
why should they force one particular decision on the user?
Force is a strange choice of word. No doubt in your car, the right hand pedal is the accelerator, and to the left of it is the brake. The indicator stem might be on the right of the wheel, or it might be on the left. Do you feel "forced" by whoever it was that chose to put them that way around? Do you demand the ability to customise the location of those controls?
Imagine a car where you could customise everything. Hey you don't have to imagine. It's here. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/homermobile.jpg/
If they like to take things apart with a screwdriver, and successfully put them back together again, they might be interested in robotics. If they are more interested in football or dancing around with a tutu, then it's probably not for them.
So you have no answer. No reason why people should have a duty to supply you with free stuff. Just a sense of entitlement.
I know this is hard for many Apple cock guzzlers to realize
I see you're an asshole. That explains your opinions.
So how come the Samsung looks more like an iPad than it looks like the 2001:A Space Oddessy tablet?
What bullshit.
Your semi-literacy is hard to read.
With pre-iOS 5 devices, new OS versions are auto-downloaded by iTunes and offered for installation the next time they connect to a PC/Mac and sync. Either those 3 iAds haven't been synced for a while, or the owners said no when offered.
From iOS 5 onwards they don't even need to connect to a computer. Updates are over the air.
heck, with the right instructions people could root their phones and install the latest version of android
So on the one hand your pointing out that people aren't doing auto-updating. But somehow you think they'll do do rooting, finding suitable builds (if only they were available) and manual installation. You haven't really thought it out.
What a lot of bollocks. Phones and tablets didn't look like that before iPhone and iPad.
More accurately, people tend to buy iPhones because they are better, and they are happy to pay a little more for something that's better. Same thing goes for apps. With the typical app costing 99c, it's such a little amount of money, it's worth spending that rather than getting something worse that's free.
It's the difference between people that want value and people that want cheap.