It's not Notes, that's for sure. As far as these collaborative solutions go, exchange is the top of the dung heap.
The killer app in this case is the integration of calendaring and email - and in this, MS appears to take the crown. IMAP would be the API you're looking for, although MAPI is the non-standard flawed MS specific API used by Exchange/Outlook.
Oh, and Exchange isn't LDAP integrated. It's AD integrated. When Exchange was hooked into AD, the performance of Exchange dropped by several orders of magnitude. I was able to send an email to a 25K distribution list in about 10s in Exchange 5.x, in the AD version, that same email took many hours to be delivered. Exchange/AD is one of the worst "integrations" on the planet.
As for alternatives, any IMAP mailserver/client will perform roughly equally in mail, and any iCal server/client pair work equally well for calendaring, where the problem lays is the integration of the two. BTW, external integration for MS Outlook is a major fail, as any calendar update sent out within a minute appears to be FIFO, as seconds don't appear to count. Try doing several updates in Outlook on an event, and see what results in a client on a different (non MS) calendar client/server.
Frankly, Microsoft would do well to take a note from Apple's playbook and SHUT THE FUCK UP about the product until it's release instead of blathering like a spastic child about it's vaporware, leaking feature after feature and allowing the competition to catch up or even surpass it's abilities before the product is even launched.
Actually, it's a strategy MS has used over and over again when it's products are waning in the competitive market. They'll bluster and blather about all these wonderful features, and, but wait!!!... there's more!!! and inexplicably (in my mind anyways) they manage to get the entire media world to listen to them and ignore everyone else. Until they fail to deliver... Anyone else remember Chicago, Blackcomb, or Longhorn?
If you cant recognize that Microsoft has made SOME great products, then youre either ignorant or a fanboy, and probably both. Examples: Exchange, Outlook, Excel, Visio (FINALLY there is a worthy competitor in Gliffy), Win7 (Hows gnome3 / Unity treating you?), etc.
Im just not sold on the whole Phone 7. Minimal isnt something MS does well; most of their products include the kitchen sink.
Exchange/Outlook both suck, with the exception of internal email/calendaring integration. MS managed to completely screw over 20 years of internet convention with a single product.
Excel - this is a product that does everything half-assed. It's not really good for any single use, except perhaps the most basic - spreadsheet functions. Which, btw, Visicalc did long long before them with a tiny fraction of the resource requirements.
Visio - not originally an MS product, after MS purchased Visio they promptly screwed it up. There are a number of other products out there that are far better. (OmniGraffle for one)
I've run and coded for Win7/2008 R2. Guess what? It actually sucks worse than the previous versions and gives me no reason to bother memorizing yet another randomly ordered menu system. In fact, for servers, MS has pretty much shoved me ever more into *nix systems for the last 15 years. On the desktop, I've just about run every flavor of OS you'd care to name in the past 20 years, with the exception of BeOS. That would include things like IRIX and Solaris. The MS product revamp circle speaks to a complete lack of consistency in design, provided anything was actually designed across versions.
Outlook is actually good software if you need email + calendar. I really haven't found anything as good. The Bat! sure comes as close and is lightweight as hell, but it just doesn't have the same integration and feel either. It's the best try so far, at least.
I will admit that Microsoft kinda got the email/calendar integration right. Why "kinda"? Because it was actually a whole lot better back in Exchange 5/Outlook97 before they completely screwed it up due to security and performance concerns. Even with that said, it's still one of the better client integrations out on the market, albeit with the caveat that no one else can integrate 100% with Outlook nor Outlook's Calendaring.
And when it is proven that said gun is defective, you might as well be laying blame on it, for it is still a 3rd party (manufacturer) that is held accountable. Nothing is black and white when it comes to liability...doubly so with our laws today.
It won't be the gun that's to blame, but the manufacturer, or the owner that failed to maintain it.
Yes, and my point was "manufacturers" and "corporations" have become as faceless as the inanimate objects they create, and with our laws today and loopholes(a.k.a. corruption), you might as well be suing the object.
I'm quite certain that millions of people affected by the faceless US financial sector, and the massive void of legal recourse there, would agree./p>
Ok, I reread that a couple of times... I'm still hazy on your point. The manufacturer should be the one that's held accountable, and according to your statement, and many successful lawsuits, manufacturers are held accountable. So how does the blame get put on the "gun" in the above set of statements?
You can't argue that the gun isn't to blame for the death of the person who got shot with it in much the same way.
A gun has no will, therefore can have no blame.
And when it is proven that said gun is defective, you might as well be laying blame on it, for it is still a 3rd party (manufacturer) that is held accountable. Nothing is black and white when it comes to liability...doubly so with our laws today.
It won't be the gun that's to blame, but the manufacturer, or the owner that failed to maintain it.
Yes, it is. You don't have to have faith that your wife exists, but you must be faithful to her.
Why don't I need faith that a wife exists? (Below, you ask me to prove I'm sentient.) Why must I be faithful to said wife? You are making an incorrect assumption here that your moral and cultural beliefs are de facto the way things should be. After all, some fundamentalist mormons have more than 1 wife, and apparently at least 1 practiced taking "spiritual" wives and then sharing them with others. They also claim to be following the bible to the letter. Their "bible" most likely happens to differ from yours, much like yours differs from what existed 1000 years ago, much less 1800 years ago (oldest known written pieces).
Since when is money a "god"?
You've never heard od the Almighty Dollar? Mammon is worshiped by most Americans; it is what they love and depend on, and they are faithful to their little green god.
Sure I have, but not as a god, more like the golden rule type of statement (he who has the gold makes the rules). Point me to a temple of money worship where the "faithful" come and pray to "money". (I've heard people pray for money, but not to it.)
Why would "God" be so worried about all these lesser false gods, such as "mother nature"?
If you wrote a complex program, or a large, well written book, or painted a masterpiece, how would you like someone else taking credit for it?
If I'm omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, how could that happen unless I wanted it to? Another point - why would I need servants or care what others think? (remember - I'm omnipotent and omniscient) Just a few logical flaws there.
Is it possible omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not attributes after all?
Can you not put a breakpoint in your code? Can you not examine every byte of your program? Can you not delete, add, or rewrite parts of it? How could the creator of the universe not be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent?
Sure I can, but I can assure you I don't know every bit of the code, nor am I in total control of the code, and most importantly, I'm not in my code, nor do I pretend otherwise. Otherwise, my code would either be perfect always, and we wouldn't have anything other than my code running everything, or I would be one seriously flawed individual, as how else could you explain bugs?
To answer your last question: perhaps there isn't a creator? And let's assume for giggles there is. Where did the creator come from? (Always existed? Well then, why can't the universe always have existed? Oh, that big bang beginning of time thing.... Well, what if time actually is independent of our perception of the universe post big-bang. What if the big-bang was just an aberration of the matter/anti-matter pairing on the event horizon of a black hole, with one on the outside, and the other on the inside of the event horizon, giving an apparent net positive matter to the universe. An aberration orders of magnitude bigger than that single pairing, and the resulting blast of so much matter/anti-matter (big bang anyone?) resulting in an uneven distribution of matter/anti-matter in what we now know as the universe. In case you're wondering about the "absent" anti-matter that would have been required for that to happen, we still don't know a lot about anti-matter, and it's quite possible that the blast caused the anti-matter to shoot out faster than the matter - creating an anti-matter bubble we can't yet see....
Arguments for sentience would require an agreed upon definition of sentience.
How about Webster's dictionary?
Definition of 2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought So prove to me that you have emotions and feel pleasure and pain.
I'll counter that by asking you to prove to me that you
You misunderstand "faith". It isn't "having faith that God exists, it's "faith" as in being faithful to God and not worshiping another god, such as money or "mother nature" (the Wiccan god).
Really? Is it? Or is that merely your interpretation of "faith"? Since when is money a "god"? Why would "God" be so worried about all these lesser false gods, such as "mother nature"? Is it possible omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not attributes after all?
Arguments for sentience would require an agreed upon definition of sentience.
The biggest problem with arguments for religion are that when it comes down to facts, the only argument a religion can make is you cannot prove the non-existance of god/allah/souls/ghosts/the galactic turtle/a frog. Wait, in the case of the last one, I can prove a frog exists, so that's not a valid entry.
While I may not be able to prove that the previous things do not exist (excepting the frog), I can also not prove that superman, spiderman, wonder woman, Xena, Gorp, nor the Asgaard do not exist. Unlikely, probably not on our planet, but I cannot conclusively prove that they do not exist.
And therein lies the problem with religion - there is no proof for the religion so the question boils down to why is religion 'A' more or less valid that religion 'B', where A and B could be two choices from the sample list below:
- Catholicism
- Lutheran
- Orthodox Christianity
- Shia
- Sunni
- Sufism
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Judaism
- Santeria
- Voodoo
- Gateway of Heaven
- Wicca
- Jainism
- Any of the beliefs of tribal peoples throughout the world
- Greek mythos
- Roman mythos
You can pick any two, to start with, preferably from different branches of religion for greatest effect. This exercise quickly leads one to state that either all religions are false, or all will be equally true (yes, even the Greek mythos, for example - just make the statement that Mt Olympus of myth is in the heavens, and you've removed the provably false statement that the home of the gods is on top of physical Mt Olympus). Since not all can be true, especially as many of the religions themselves state they are the one true religion, logically you must conclude at least all those making that claim are false. I'll also assume that you'll finagle your way to making the statement that a whole host of others are also false. The real effort will be in finding a reason to state any are not false.
There's nothing insightful there, just mockery of 98% of the world's population. Simply asserting everyone who disagrees with you is stupid doesn't make it so.
The important thing is that you enjoy your smartphone choice. I currently have no hoops to jump through and no Carrier IQ to worry about and I like it that way.
and completely vacuous as compared to any of the topics in the OP you responded to. Matter of fact, what exactly is your stance other than interjecting a comment about anecdotes?
Note that the last statements in the OP were factual:
there's effectively no Carrier IQ in iOS 5 even on AT&T systems. That's a pretty big deal killer for Android with people I know
For android to become a major threat to the iPad they will need to ether produce something that is just as good as the iPad and a LOT cheaper or at around the same price something a LOT Better then the iPad and that includes smoother scrolling.
The problem for Android will be that they're targeting the current iPad. All rumors indicate a major improvement just around the corner that will make iPad 3/HD/whatever leap ahead of all current tablets (quad+ core, same or better battery life, much higher res screen). All those should occur, the only question is when. Android makers can compete with 2 of those features, but I doubt they're going to be able to do it at a better price based on the prices we're seeing today and knowing Apple's general release practices of upping the features and maintaining the price point.
I wouldn't touch an Android phone right now, and yes, I have used them and helped several friends with numerous issues they were having. The end result - one went iphone after 3 android handsets, the other is going iPhone after resisting it since the beginning. A third, with whom I have many discussions on the topic, has an iPhone despite stating his preferences for Android (he's a true hacker). He owns several Android devices, but none are his primary, nor do any run the original OS.
In short, Android is nice, has several neat features, and it's great if you don't mind working with it and dealing with its oddities. In general iPhones, while having some oddities, just seems to do what's needed and you live with those one or two things that don't quite work as you'd like.
And, there's effectively no Carrier IQ in iOS 5 even on AT&T systems. That's a pretty big deal killer for Android with people I know.
As I reread this post - I should also note that some refer to Web 2.0 as just the active components that hide/show pieces on the page and filling of controls with data on demand. What I'm calling Web 2.0 includes the interaction between the client and the server, which implies the active page controls but includes live connections and activity. 5 years ago, the company I was at marketed this as Web 3.0, although that never appeared to catch on.:) Essentially, we took the web to rich clients instead of relatively static and simple web pages. Even Google Docs is a relatively simple compared to what we built.
Yep, and anyone with GoDaddy should migrate away from them asap. Nothing gets a message across like a mass exodus. See Netflix for an executive getting the message.
The truly funny part is Web 2.0 is back to classic Client/Server programming, utilizing an HTML engine as the client. I believe that existed since the 60s with dumb terminals, but certainly no later than the early 80s with the current modern thick client/server model (think X11 and the like)
It seems like you're talking about HTML5 (Creating websites with application-like user experience with combinations of the latest HTML, CSS and JS features) though you refer to it as Web 2.0.
No, I'm not talking about HTML5 at all. Web 2.0 has everything to do with the the underlying communication architecture. It went from passive 1-way to interactive 2-way communication. This allows for interesting new functionality to be created and displayed in the UI. It has nothing to do with what you've listed there: blogs, youtube,/., etc. All of those are conceptually Web 1.0 products, although they may have some Web 2.0 niceties added on to enhance the user experience.
Google Docs would be a good example of complex Web 2.0 functionality, where multiple people can edit a spreadsheet, for instance, and everyone sees the spreadsheet in real time. This functionality is impossible with Web 1.0. (Note: "real time" is not required for Web 2.0 functionality, but it is certainly a flag if it exists that it most likely is a Web 2.0 app, vs Web 1.0.)
Note also that Google Docs is a classic Client/Server application.
HTML5 standardized a lot of UI front-end pieces, some nice additions for handling certain types of media, the ability to access local resources to support applications, and added a messaging paradigm. It encompasses some of Web 2.0, but it's mostly to get a whole host of UI pieces standardized.
Apparently you haven't played with X11 at all if you think we're doing more now than in the 80s.
I distinctly recall using SGI machines to run PATRAN modeling software that was backed by a Cray YMP-16. If you think a little Web 2.0 app comes anywhere near the intricacy of visualizing stress results on a 300K 3D element model, you need to revisit what existed back in the late 80s. It might just shock you back into the future. (and no, it wasn't real time either, you submitted commands and went to get a cup of pretty much whatever was furthest away)
Even in low rights mode, you can still do code injection if you know what you're doing in Windows. It's one of Windows fundamental architectural flaws.
There's only 1 exploit, and it's the win32k bug. Safari is merely a means to exploit it. If Safari were taken out of the equation, the bug still exists.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not Notes, that's for sure. As far as these collaborative solutions go, exchange is the top of the dung heap.
The killer app in this case is the integration of calendaring and email - and in this, MS appears to take the crown. IMAP would be the API you're looking for, although MAPI is the non-standard flawed MS specific API used by Exchange/Outlook.
Oh, and Exchange isn't LDAP integrated. It's AD integrated. When Exchange was hooked into AD, the performance of Exchange dropped by several orders of magnitude. I was able to send an email to a 25K distribution list in about 10s in Exchange 5.x, in the AD version, that same email took many hours to be delivered. Exchange/AD is one of the worst "integrations" on the planet.
As for alternatives, any IMAP mailserver/client will perform roughly equally in mail, and any iCal server/client pair work equally well for calendaring, where the problem lays is the integration of the two. BTW, external integration for MS Outlook is a major fail, as any calendar update sent out within a minute appears to be FIFO, as seconds don't appear to count. Try doing several updates in Outlook on an event, and see what results in a client on a different (non MS) calendar client/server.
Frankly, Microsoft would do well to take a note from Apple's playbook and SHUT THE FUCK UP about the product until it's release instead of blathering like a spastic child about it's vaporware, leaking feature after feature and allowing the competition to catch up or even surpass it's abilities before the product is even launched.
Actually, it's a strategy MS has used over and over again when it's products are waning in the competitive market. They'll bluster and blather about all these wonderful features, and, but wait!!!... there's more!!! and inexplicably (in my mind anyways) they manage to get the entire media world to listen to them and ignore everyone else. Until they fail to deliver... Anyone else remember Chicago, Blackcomb, or Longhorn?
If you cant recognize that Microsoft has made SOME great products, then youre either ignorant or a fanboy, and probably both. Examples: Exchange, Outlook, Excel, Visio (FINALLY there is a worthy competitor in Gliffy), Win7 (Hows gnome3 / Unity treating you?), etc.
Im just not sold on the whole Phone 7. Minimal isnt something MS does well; most of their products include the kitchen sink.
Exchange/Outlook both suck, with the exception of internal email/calendaring integration. MS managed to completely screw over 20 years of internet convention with a single product.
Excel - this is a product that does everything half-assed. It's not really good for any single use, except perhaps the most basic - spreadsheet functions. Which, btw, Visicalc did long long before them with a tiny fraction of the resource requirements.
Visio - not originally an MS product, after MS purchased Visio they promptly screwed it up. There are a number of other products out there that are far better. (OmniGraffle for one)
I've run and coded for Win7/2008 R2. Guess what? It actually sucks worse than the previous versions and gives me no reason to bother memorizing yet another randomly ordered menu system. In fact, for servers, MS has pretty much shoved me ever more into *nix systems for the last 15 years. On the desktop, I've just about run every flavor of OS you'd care to name in the past 20 years, with the exception of BeOS. That would include things like IRIX and Solaris. The MS product revamp circle speaks to a complete lack of consistency in design, provided anything was actually designed across versions.
Outlook is actually good software if you need email + calendar. I really haven't found anything as good. The Bat! sure comes as close and is lightweight as hell, but it just doesn't have the same integration and feel either. It's the best try so far, at least.
I will admit that Microsoft kinda got the email/calendar integration right. Why "kinda"? Because it was actually a whole lot better back in Exchange 5/Outlook97 before they completely screwed it up due to security and performance concerns. Even with that said, it's still one of the better client integrations out on the market, albeit with the caveat that no one else can integrate 100% with Outlook nor Outlook's Calendaring.
And when it is proven that said gun is defective, you might as well be laying blame on it, for it is still a 3rd party (manufacturer) that is held accountable. Nothing is black and white when it comes to liability...doubly so with our laws today.
It won't be the gun that's to blame, but the manufacturer, or the owner that failed to maintain it.
Yes, and my point was "manufacturers" and "corporations" have become as faceless as the inanimate objects they create, and with our laws today and loopholes(a.k.a. corruption), you might as well be suing the object.
I'm quite certain that millions of people affected by the faceless US financial sector, and the massive void of legal recourse there, would agree./p>
Ok, I reread that a couple of times... I'm still hazy on your point. The manufacturer should be the one that's held accountable, and according to your statement, and many successful lawsuits, manufacturers are held accountable. So how does the blame get put on the "gun" in the above set of statements?
You can't argue that the gun isn't to blame for the death of the person who got shot with it in much the same way.
A gun has no will, therefore can have no blame.
And a communications website has no intent either...
Exactly.
You can't argue that the gun isn't to blame for the death of the person who got shot with it in much the same way.
A gun has no will, therefore can have no blame.
And when it is proven that said gun is defective, you might as well be laying blame on it, for it is still a 3rd party (manufacturer) that is held accountable. Nothing is black and white when it comes to liability...doubly so with our laws today.
It won't be the gun that's to blame, but the manufacturer, or the owner that failed to maintain it.
You can't argue that the gun isn't to blame for the death of the person who got shot with it in much the same way.
A gun has no will, therefore can have no blame.
Really? Is it?
Yes, it is. You don't have to have faith that your wife exists, but you must be faithful to her.
Why don't I need faith that a wife exists? (Below, you ask me to prove I'm sentient.) Why must I be faithful to said wife? You are making an incorrect assumption here that your moral and cultural beliefs are de facto the way things should be. After all, some fundamentalist mormons have more than 1 wife, and apparently at least 1 practiced taking "spiritual" wives and then sharing them with others. They also claim to be following the bible to the letter. Their "bible" most likely happens to differ from yours, much like yours differs from what existed 1000 years ago, much less 1800 years ago (oldest known written pieces).
Since when is money a "god"?
You've never heard od the Almighty Dollar? Mammon is worshiped by most Americans; it is what they love and depend on, and they are faithful to their little green god.
Sure I have, but not as a god, more like the golden rule type of statement (he who has the gold makes the rules). Point me to a temple of money worship where the "faithful" come and pray to "money". (I've heard people pray for money, but not to it.)
Why would "God" be so worried about all these lesser false gods, such as "mother nature"?
If you wrote a complex program, or a large, well written book, or painted a masterpiece, how would you like someone else taking credit for it?
If I'm omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, how could that happen unless I wanted it to? Another point - why would I need servants or care what others think? (remember - I'm omnipotent and omniscient) Just a few logical flaws there.
Is it possible omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not attributes after all?
Can you not put a breakpoint in your code? Can you not examine every byte of your program? Can you not delete, add, or rewrite parts of it? How could the creator of the universe not be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent?
Sure I can, but I can assure you I don't know every bit of the code, nor am I in total control of the code, and most importantly, I'm not in my code, nor do I pretend otherwise. Otherwise, my code would either be perfect always, and we wouldn't have anything other than my code running everything, or I would be one seriously flawed individual, as how else could you explain bugs?
To answer your last question: perhaps there isn't a creator? And let's assume for giggles there is. Where did the creator come from? (Always existed? Well then, why can't the universe always have existed? Oh, that big bang beginning of time thing.... Well, what if time actually is independent of our perception of the universe post big-bang. What if the big-bang was just an aberration of the matter/anti-matter pairing on the event horizon of a black hole, with one on the outside, and the other on the inside of the event horizon, giving an apparent net positive matter to the universe. An aberration orders of magnitude bigger than that single pairing, and the resulting blast of so much matter/anti-matter (big bang anyone?) resulting in an uneven distribution of matter/anti-matter in what we now know as the universe. In case you're wondering about the "absent" anti-matter that would have been required for that to happen, we still don't know a lot about anti-matter, and it's quite possible that the blast caused the anti-matter to shoot out faster than the matter - creating an anti-matter bubble we can't yet see....
Arguments for sentience would require an agreed upon definition of sentience.
How about Webster's dictionary?
Definition of 2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
So prove to me that you have emotions and feel pleasure and pain.
I'll counter that by asking you to prove to me that you
You misunderstand "faith". It isn't "having faith that God exists, it's "faith" as in being faithful to God and not worshiping another god, such as money or "mother nature" (the Wiccan god).
Really? Is it? Or is that merely your interpretation of "faith"? Since when is money a "god"? Why would "God" be so worried about all these lesser false gods, such as "mother nature"? Is it possible omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not attributes after all?
Arguments for sentience would require an agreed upon definition of sentience.
The biggest problem with arguments for religion are that when it comes down to facts, the only argument a religion can make is you cannot prove the non-existance of god/allah/souls/ghosts/the galactic turtle/a frog. Wait, in the case of the last one, I can prove a frog exists, so that's not a valid entry.
While I may not be able to prove that the previous things do not exist (excepting the frog), I can also not prove that superman, spiderman, wonder woman, Xena, Gorp, nor the Asgaard do not exist. Unlikely, probably not on our planet, but I cannot conclusively prove that they do not exist.
And therein lies the problem with religion - there is no proof for the religion so the question boils down to why is religion 'A' more or less valid that religion 'B', where A and B could be two choices from the sample list below:
- Catholicism
- Lutheran
- Orthodox Christianity
- Shia
- Sunni
- Sufism
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Judaism
- Santeria
- Voodoo
- Gateway of Heaven
- Wicca
- Jainism
- Any of the beliefs of tribal peoples throughout the world
- Greek mythos
- Roman mythos
You can pick any two, to start with, preferably from different branches of religion for greatest effect. This exercise quickly leads one to state that either all religions are false, or all will be equally true (yes, even the Greek mythos, for example - just make the statement that Mt Olympus of myth is in the heavens, and you've removed the provably false statement that the home of the gods is on top of physical Mt Olympus). Since not all can be true, especially as many of the religions themselves state they are the one true religion, logically you must conclude at least all those making that claim are false. I'll also assume that you'll finagle your way to making the statement that a whole host of others are also false. The real effort will be in finding a reason to state any are not false.
There's nothing insightful there, just mockery of 98% of the world's population. Simply asserting everyone who disagrees with you is stupid doesn't make it so.
A million lemmings can't be wrong.
The important thing is that you enjoy your smartphone choice. I currently have no hoops to jump through and no Carrier IQ to worry about and I like it that way.
and completely vacuous as compared to any of the topics in the OP you responded to. Matter of fact, what exactly is your stance other than interjecting a comment about anecdotes?
Note that the last statements in the OP were factual:
there's effectively no Carrier IQ in iOS 5 even on AT&T systems. That's a pretty big deal killer for Android with people I know
You're correct - s/opinion/comment|interjection|thoughts|etc/g
Nobody asked for your opinion either... but look! There it is.
For android to become a major threat to the iPad they will need to ether produce something that is just as good as the iPad and a LOT cheaper or at around the same price something a LOT Better then the iPad and that includes smoother scrolling.
The problem for Android will be that they're targeting the current iPad. All rumors indicate a major improvement just around the corner that will make iPad 3/HD/whatever leap ahead of all current tablets (quad+ core, same or better battery life, much higher res screen). All those should occur, the only question is when. Android makers can compete with 2 of those features, but I doubt they're going to be able to do it at a better price based on the prices we're seeing today and knowing Apple's general release practices of upping the features and maintaining the price point.
We still do.
I wouldn't touch an Android phone right now, and yes, I have used them and helped several friends with numerous issues they were having. The end result - one went iphone after 3 android handsets, the other is going iPhone after resisting it since the beginning. A third, with whom I have many discussions on the topic, has an iPhone despite stating his preferences for Android (he's a true hacker). He owns several Android devices, but none are his primary, nor do any run the original OS.
In short, Android is nice, has several neat features, and it's great if you don't mind working with it and dealing with its oddities. In general iPhones, while having some oddities, just seems to do what's needed and you live with those one or two things that don't quite work as you'd like.
And, there's effectively no Carrier IQ in iOS 5 even on AT&T systems. That's a pretty big deal killer for Android with people I know.
As I reread this post - I should also note that some refer to Web 2.0 as just the active components that hide/show pieces on the page and filling of controls with data on demand. What I'm calling Web 2.0 includes the interaction between the client and the server, which implies the active page controls but includes live connections and activity. 5 years ago, the company I was at marketed this as Web 3.0, although that never appeared to catch on. :) Essentially, we took the web to rich clients instead of relatively static and simple web pages. Even Google Docs is a relatively simple compared to what we built.
Yep, and anyone with GoDaddy should migrate away from them asap. Nothing gets a message across like a mass exodus. See Netflix for an executive getting the message.
The truly funny part is Web 2.0 is back to classic Client/Server programming, utilizing an HTML engine as the client. I believe that existed since the 60s with dumb terminals, but certainly no later than the early 80s with the current modern thick client/server model (think X11 and the like)
It seems like you're talking about HTML5 (Creating websites with application-like user experience with combinations of the latest HTML, CSS and JS features) though you refer to it as Web 2.0.
No, I'm not talking about HTML5 at all. Web 2.0 has everything to do with the the underlying communication architecture. It went from passive 1-way to interactive 2-way communication. This allows for interesting new functionality to be created and displayed in the UI. It has nothing to do with what you've listed there: blogs, youtube, /., etc. All of those are conceptually Web 1.0 products, although they may have some Web 2.0 niceties added on to enhance the user experience.
Google Docs would be a good example of complex Web 2.0 functionality, where multiple people can edit a spreadsheet, for instance, and everyone sees the spreadsheet in real time. This functionality is impossible with Web 1.0. (Note: "real time" is not required for Web 2.0 functionality, but it is certainly a flag if it exists that it most likely is a Web 2.0 app, vs Web 1.0.)
Note also that Google Docs is a classic Client/Server application.
HTML5 standardized a lot of UI front-end pieces, some nice additions for handling certain types of media, the ability to access local resources to support applications, and added a messaging paradigm. It encompasses some of Web 2.0, but it's mostly to get a whole host of UI pieces standardized.
Apparently you haven't played with X11 at all if you think we're doing more now than in the 80s.
I distinctly recall using SGI machines to run PATRAN modeling software that was backed by a Cray YMP-16. If you think a little Web 2.0 app comes anywhere near the intricacy of visualizing stress results on a 300K 3D element model, you need to revisit what existed back in the late 80s. It might just shock you back into the future. (and no, it wasn't real time either, you submitted commands and went to get a cup of pretty much whatever was furthest away)
Hear whooshes much?
They don't starve. No one said anything about living well. Not starving is a step the poor in many countries yearn for.
Even in low rights mode, you can still do code injection if you know what you're doing in Windows. It's one of Windows fundamental architectural flaws.
There's only 1 exploit, and it's the win32k bug. Safari is merely a means to exploit it. If Safari were taken out of the equation, the bug still exists.