So we should get rid of the police force, as they can become corrupt? I can see where your argument is coming from, but it seems awfully short-sighted. Where do we draw the line between what's acceptable and what might go wrong in the future?
The MS offering had multiple simultaneous inputs, too. More than just fingers. Nothing you've posted is beyond the reach of MS, especially with their R&D budget. I fail to see how a cheap, second-rate knock-off is more revolutionary than a device that promises much, much more.
Firefox is something completely different. It just needs to understand HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, etc. AND you can install it on Windows. Microsoft's "lock-in" has nothing to do with this. Linux doesn't offer the same as Windows. That's all there is to it. Once you can do everything on Linux that you can do on Windows, just as quickly, with the same or less hassle, people will switch in droves. At the moment people have to make sacrifices when they switch, if they're not just using their computer to check email and surf the net, and folks won't make sacrifices without a reason, and "microsoft sucks" is not a good enough reason for people to suffer these sacrifices.
Cars, TV, beer, etc. all work on the same raw materials. Cars use petrol, TVs use electricity, beer uses stomachs. Linux vs. Windows, however is a completely different kettle of fish. It'd be like if the car needed special petrol you get for free in the mail, that you have to mix yourself in your bathtub, whereas the Windows car gets it from the gas station on every corner. Sure it costs more, but it's right there.
"on the software side it's there" - really? Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, MS Office, games? All as available as on Windows? I'm not being a dick here, but please, you know that's not true:) It just takes needing ONE of those and Linux is off the table for that user. The "use open office/gimp/some html editor that doesn't do everything dreamweaver does/buggy wine" advice doesn't cut it for folks, as the simple answer is "why should I, when Windows is right there?". Most folks don't choose their OS through ideological methods, but because they have a task to complete, and they want an OS that will let them complete it. I use linux all the time, and it's nowhere near as complete software-wise as Windows is.
Putting Linux's less-than-spectacular market share down to folks not knowing about it is doing Linux, and its community, a great dis-service by ignoring the real reasons it's not as popular as it could be. Most folks don't choose their OS because of ideological beliefs, but because of what they can do with it. Microsoft Office, Photoshop, games, help from the internet, hardware, etc. all play a far bigger part in Linux's desktop market share than folks knowing about it. People won't switch with the promise of "just use what's on offer at the moment, and one day it'll get better", as they're not using computers in that way - they're not part of a movement, they're just trying to get shit done. They want to use their computers NOW, not in a few years.
Linux is fantastic, I use it every day on many machines in my job. I won't have it at home, however, as I like the software I can use on windows too much. I don't want to cut my nose off to spite MS, as I just don't give a damn about MS or RedHat or Linus or Tux or any other camp. I care about getting my work done.
That wasn't a satellite. It was a ship in low-earth orbit. They referenced it being launched from a B1. Though an un-manned satellite would make far more sense, I would have thought.
You'd also need to know where the key insurgents are, which is the biggest problem. And if they're in caves, or hidden, or in disguise, or pretty much anything that doesn't have them walking around in neon pink safari suits with massive foam cowboy hats with "I'm worth a $20m reward" written on them, then this weapon is useless for that purpose.
That's not what he's talking about. Encyclopaedias and map makers put entries for made-up things in them, and if these same made-up streets/topics end up in another book, clearly they were copied. They don't make stuff up for existing streets/topics, but create their own. You can't look something up that doesn't exist, so it doesn't cause a problem for anyone.
It's remarkable because your PC doesn't say "your phone is in your top-left pocket, on its side, facing away from you". The MS surface demo showed the computer recognising the phone AND knowing where it was on the table (ie which "blob" was the device in question).
MS uses cameras because it does a lot more than just recognise people touching the screen. It can recognise mobile phones being put on it, different materials/objects/etc. That can't be done with a touch-sensitive screen at the moment, but it can be done with cameras. Using cameras and not an integrated solution has meant the MS offering does stuff no other has done yet. The iPhone needs a person's hand to operate, whereas the MS demo can do everything the iPhone's input device can (and, indeed MPX), and much more.
How is it impressive? The microsoft demo showed a mobile phone being put on the table, it being recognised, and files being sent to/from the device. That's not been done before in such a fashion. Having google maps on a touch-screen isn't new in the slightest. It's not integrating anything new. The MS device had a whole different bunch of applications shown on it. As it can be so much more than just a desktop - a new way of interacting with a computer - showing it acting as a desktop is a bit short-sighted and uninspired:)
Or do you think MS were somehow incapable of getting google earth to run on a computer? Because that's the only assertion you've made that, if true, would make this offering "more impressive" than that from MS. Or, maybe, these guys didn't have the ability to make new applications, and had no choice but to use some really basic stuff somoene else had made, that's been knocking around for years?
Fantastic troll there. Seriously good. You touched on the whole dumb-americans-using-films-as-history-textbooks, perceived American military supremacy, Britain being shit, and "us" vs. "them". Very well-rounded troll. Excellent work.
You should read the article more, as it states that it destroyed a massive part of the food production in the area, dealt a blow to German morale (while boosting that of the Brits), and gave Churchill more chips at the table when dealing with the other allied leaders. So directly and militarily, fair enough, but to say it served no purpose what-so-ever is short-sighted, especially when it's spelled out in the same article you quote from:)
Do you mean a drop-down list instead of a pop-up? If so, you can use the keyboard to enter data into those (on Windows, anyway - OS X still has some problems with keyboard-accessible forms). They're usually accelerated by the keyboard, so when entering a date, you can type it in, and it'll select the one you type. A good feature on Windows (I know, oxymoron, emphasis on the moron, etc.) is in Explorer, instead of using the mouse to select a filename, you just type it in, and it'll select it.
Using the mouse is intrinsically slower than the keyboard, especially when you switch from one to the other. That's why I can't use OS X, even with the option enabled to use the keyboard for all parts of the GUI, as that still doesn't allow for properly keyboard-accessible use of the GUI.
And if time is not enough? Or if, as I said, they kill themselves because they simply can't stomach an undefined length of time they have to suffer through?
Or what about folks who kill themselves because they can't live a day without being caught up in bad shit that's happened? They won't have a chance to learn from their bad times, as their bad times will have killed them. I'm not having a go at you, but bad memories aren't always afterschool-special-type memories, but often some really fucked up shit that reaches down to every atom in your body and flatly refuses to let go, even slightly. Stuff like this drug might actually help some folks try to live a normal life again.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not bitching about the 160ppi screen - quite the contrary. It's analogous to having a fantastic Ferrari with no wheels. You have the equipment to do something fantastic (the screen), but some other idea (locked OS, no custom apps) means its usefulness has been rather massively limited.
Judging how much people want something is no real way to figure out how good it is. After all, more folks use Windows than Linux, and more folks have fleas than Ferraris, and McDonalds sells more BigMacs than salads.
Re:I work in an FDA-regulated environment,...
on
Vista is Watching You
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's fully-disclosed and hardly sneaky. If you block it, it will still work fine, but you lose updates to Windows and its components, you won't get your DRM certificates for media it's introduced to, your IPv6 NAT service won't work as expected, and online help features stop working. Want to stop them? Firewall rules, or disable the services.
Everything has to be considered a security risk from your position, otherwise you're not doing your job:)
So you have bought the hype. Fantastic. There are PLENTY of phones out there that have more than 1GB of memory. 160ppi screen? That doesn't mean a lot when what you're limited to using it how the manufacturer has deemed you want to, instead of using it how you want to. Better internet experience? You mean, like faster over 3G? Yup - look to other phones for that. GPS? That too. And flash. And java.
I don't need to try out a shoe/car/cat/bowl-of-chili to see if it makes a great phone - I can tell from its specs it's not up to scratch. It doesn't matter how nice the packaging is, my glee in owning an iPhone doesn't instantly give it GPS, 3G, a decent camera, and stereo bluetooth audio.
Slashdot Mirror
So we should get rid of the police force, as they can become corrupt? I can see where your argument is coming from, but it seems awfully short-sighted. Where do we draw the line between what's acceptable and what might go wrong in the future?
Most of the phones sold in Europe are triple- or even quad-band phones, which work anywhere GSM is supported (even the US!)
The MS offering had multiple simultaneous inputs, too. More than just fingers. Nothing you've posted is beyond the reach of MS, especially with their R&D budget. I fail to see how a cheap, second-rate knock-off is more revolutionary than a device that promises much, much more.
Firefox is something completely different. It just needs to understand HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, etc. AND you can install it on Windows. Microsoft's "lock-in" has nothing to do with this. Linux doesn't offer the same as Windows. That's all there is to it. Once you can do everything on Linux that you can do on Windows, just as quickly, with the same or less hassle, people will switch in droves. At the moment people have to make sacrifices when they switch, if they're not just using their computer to check email and surf the net, and folks won't make sacrifices without a reason, and "microsoft sucks" is not a good enough reason for people to suffer these sacrifices.
Cars, TV, beer, etc. all work on the same raw materials. Cars use petrol, TVs use electricity, beer uses stomachs. Linux vs. Windows, however is a completely different kettle of fish. It'd be like if the car needed special petrol you get for free in the mail, that you have to mix yourself in your bathtub, whereas the Windows car gets it from the gas station on every corner. Sure it costs more, but it's right there.
Not all choices are equal.
source->ffmpeg->gimp->ffmpeg->final. You'll have to edit each frame by hand, but it works! :-P
"on the software side it's there" - really? Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, MS Office, games? All as available as on Windows? I'm not being a dick here, but please, you know that's not true :) It just takes needing ONE of those and Linux is off the table for that user. The "use open office/gimp/some html editor that doesn't do everything dreamweaver does/buggy wine" advice doesn't cut it for folks, as the simple answer is "why should I, when Windows is right there?". Most folks don't choose their OS through ideological methods, but because they have a task to complete, and they want an OS that will let them complete it. I use linux all the time, and it's nowhere near as complete software-wise as Windows is.
Putting Linux's less-than-spectacular market share down to folks not knowing about it is doing Linux, and its community, a great dis-service by ignoring the real reasons it's not as popular as it could be. Most folks don't choose their OS because of ideological beliefs, but because of what they can do with it. Microsoft Office, Photoshop, games, help from the internet, hardware, etc. all play a far bigger part in Linux's desktop market share than folks knowing about it. People won't switch with the promise of "just use what's on offer at the moment, and one day it'll get better", as they're not using computers in that way - they're not part of a movement, they're just trying to get shit done. They want to use their computers NOW, not in a few years.
Linux is fantastic, I use it every day on many machines in my job. I won't have it at home, however, as I like the software I can use on windows too much. I don't want to cut my nose off to spite MS, as I just don't give a damn about MS or RedHat or Linus or Tux or any other camp. I care about getting my work done.
That wasn't a satellite. It was a ship in low-earth orbit. They referenced it being launched from a B1. Though an un-manned satellite would make far more sense, I would have thought.
:)
I watched the film last night, funnily enough
You'd also need to know where the key insurgents are, which is the biggest problem. And if they're in caves, or hidden, or in disguise, or pretty much anything that doesn't have them walking around in neon pink safari suits with massive foam cowboy hats with "I'm worth a $20m reward" written on them, then this weapon is useless for that purpose.
That's not what he's talking about. Encyclopaedias and map makers put entries for made-up things in them, and if these same made-up streets/topics end up in another book, clearly they were copied. They don't make stuff up for existing streets/topics, but create their own. You can't look something up that doesn't exist, so it doesn't cause a problem for anyone.
It's remarkable because your PC doesn't say "your phone is in your top-left pocket, on its side, facing away from you". The MS surface demo showed the computer recognising the phone AND knowing where it was on the table (ie which "blob" was the device in question).
MS uses cameras because it does a lot more than just recognise people touching the screen. It can recognise mobile phones being put on it, different materials/objects/etc. That can't be done with a touch-sensitive screen at the moment, but it can be done with cameras. Using cameras and not an integrated solution has meant the MS offering does stuff no other has done yet. The iPhone needs a person's hand to operate, whereas the MS demo can do everything the iPhone's input device can (and, indeed MPX), and much more.
How is it impressive? The microsoft demo showed a mobile phone being put on the table, it being recognised, and files being sent to/from the device. That's not been done before in such a fashion. Having google maps on a touch-screen isn't new in the slightest. It's not integrating anything new. The MS device had a whole different bunch of applications shown on it. As it can be so much more than just a desktop - a new way of interacting with a computer - showing it acting as a desktop is a bit short-sighted and uninspired :)
Or do you think MS were somehow incapable of getting google earth to run on a computer? Because that's the only assertion you've made that, if true, would make this offering "more impressive" than that from MS. Or, maybe, these guys didn't have the ability to make new applications, and had no choice but to use some really basic stuff somoene else had made, that's been knocking around for years?
Fantastic troll there. Seriously good. You touched on the whole dumb-americans-using-films-as-history-textbooks, perceived American military supremacy, Britain being shit, and "us" vs. "them". Very well-rounded troll. Excellent work.
You should read the article more, as it states that it destroyed a massive part of the food production in the area, dealt a blow to German morale (while boosting that of the Brits), and gave Churchill more chips at the table when dealing with the other allied leaders. So directly and militarily, fair enough, but to say it served no purpose what-so-ever is short-sighted, especially when it's spelled out in the same article you quote from :)
Do you mean a drop-down list instead of a pop-up? If so, you can use the keyboard to enter data into those (on Windows, anyway - OS X still has some problems with keyboard-accessible forms). They're usually accelerated by the keyboard, so when entering a date, you can type it in, and it'll select the one you type. A good feature on Windows (I know, oxymoron, emphasis on the moron, etc.) is in Explorer, instead of using the mouse to select a filename, you just type it in, and it'll select it.
Using the mouse is intrinsically slower than the keyboard, especially when you switch from one to the other. That's why I can't use OS X, even with the option enabled to use the keyboard for all parts of the GUI, as that still doesn't allow for properly keyboard-accessible use of the GUI.
And if time is not enough? Or if, as I said, they kill themselves because they simply can't stomach an undefined length of time they have to suffer through?
That's being awfully picky :)
Or what about folks who kill themselves because they can't live a day without being caught up in bad shit that's happened? They won't have a chance to learn from their bad times, as their bad times will have killed them. I'm not having a go at you, but bad memories aren't always afterschool-special-type memories, but often some really fucked up shit that reaches down to every atom in your body and flatly refuses to let go, even slightly. Stuff like this drug might actually help some folks try to live a normal life again.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not bitching about the 160ppi screen - quite the contrary. It's analogous to having a fantastic Ferrari with no wheels. You have the equipment to do something fantastic (the screen), but some other idea (locked OS, no custom apps) means its usefulness has been rather massively limited.
Judging how much people want something is no real way to figure out how good it is. After all, more folks use Windows than Linux, and more folks have fleas than Ferraris, and McDonalds sells more BigMacs than salads.
It's fully-disclosed and hardly sneaky. If you block it, it will still work fine, but you lose updates to Windows and its components, you won't get your DRM certificates for media it's introduced to, your IPv6 NAT service won't work as expected, and online help features stop working. Want to stop them? Firewall rules, or disable the services.
:)
Everything has to be considered a security risk from your position, otherwise you're not doing your job
Geese flying in formation, being illuminated by the city below?
So you have bought the hype. Fantastic. There are PLENTY of phones out there that have more than 1GB of memory. 160ppi screen? That doesn't mean a lot when what you're limited to using it how the manufacturer has deemed you want to, instead of using it how you want to. Better internet experience? You mean, like faster over 3G? Yup - look to other phones for that. GPS? That too. And flash. And java.
I don't need to try out a shoe/car/cat/bowl-of-chili to see if it makes a great phone - I can tell from its specs it's not up to scratch. It doesn't matter how nice the packaging is, my glee in owning an iPhone doesn't instantly give it GPS, 3G, a decent camera, and stereo bluetooth audio.
Fanboy much?