No, capitalism is when you allow pretend "persons" (companies) to raise capital without liabilities for real people. It works, but it's a kludge, and doesn't sit comfortably with the moral responsibilities implied by enlightenment individualism.
Exactly. But I think Appleseed, Diaspora, and other open source social network software should be trying to create a standard protocol. Probably based on RSS or ATOM.
The average quality of the stuff people are listening to has gone up drastically over the last few decades. When I was young, we used to listen to tape recorded from the freakin' radio on nasty Walkman earbuds. You could hardly hear it! At home, most people I knew had a tape deck/record player. I've played around with them now, and they sound terrible. Combine that with the fact that most people''s record collections were scratched, and the listening experience is far inferior to what most people seem to have today.
Look, you like spending hundreds/thousands to get that extra 5% out of your music, okay, that's fine. But this constant bitching about how everyone who doesn't is some sort of backward buffoon is really grating.
They will never be as thin and light as a tablet, and I think we've already seen that the dual nature of these things makes for a clunky interfaces.
The other driving factor will be that a lot of people won't even get a tablet, will just have a phone. It will interface with keyboards and monitors in the same way.
You can learn to type pretty fast on a virtual keyboard, and it's just not a deal-breaker for most people to have to look at the keyboard (I can't touch type, and I do okay). I've seen people taking notes on iPads at conferences (it actually pretty common). They have the advantage of being completely silent. People just adapt.
Yep, phones will take a big chunk too, and I suspect they'll work the way you say. But tablets will be popular with people that want a larger screen on a mobile device.
Yep, because the people that make free open software have their heads up their arses over what most people want from their computing devices. And they certainly seem to lack broad vision about where this is all going in terms of user interaction.
I agree with a lot of that, except the stylus for writing. I can write faster on an iPad than I can with a stylus on glass (or even on paper, if I'm honest). I was hoping the iPad would come in a 7" model.
Totally agree about the sharing. Physical location is something developers have been ignoring for far too long. I frequently email people documents, even though they're in the same damn room! It's ridiculous.
Yep. It's the beginning, although I think it will take a few cheaper android tablets to really get this started -- tablets need to cost less than netbooks to replace them, and they will, in time.
You're wrong. Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to. Fewer and fewer people will see the need to buy a desktop or laptop computer.
To all those thinking this doesn't sound new, and that we've had swivel laptop/tablets for a decade or more, you have to realise, this swivels on a different plane. A DIFFERENT PLANE.
It's slipping in the sense that desktop OSs will be a sideshow compared to mobile devices in a few years. Windows has failed to make headway in the mobile world.
You know, its fashionable to say "profit is what matters to x", but I just don't think that's true in a lot of cases. It's part of the motivation in companies, of course, but actually, I'm pretty damn sure Steve Jobs and a lot of people at Apple are strongly motivated by a concern for industrial design, and just making stuff they like.
This is almost certainly true of a lot of companies. Profit is hardly the only thing which motivates people.
Apart from that, you're right. Market share is a by-product for Apple. Profit and making shit they like are the two big motivators.
I'm not sure what point your making exactly, but why isn't it a (startup) business in a box? That would be really damn useful. They've gone halfway there, but left enough stuff unfinished or slightly broken, that it just won't do.
Even if we accept that it's really just communications infrastructure, it's still broken (contacts especially). "Cloud", done well, should mean that I can keep a bunch of stuff in sync with people over the internet. I can't really do that.
Google attracted me because it looked like they did offer this stuff, but on closer inspection they fail to offer several basic protocols and features. And to top it off, their web interface is in places quite slick, but overall a disjointed confusing mess.
I really don't want to go down the whole Apple everything route, but man it's tempting.
One very simple example: Do you have ever set up Google Apps for a domain, with email, contacts, calendar, Google sites and so on?
I have recently been trying to set up a small business using Google Apps infrastructure. I want to be able to work with people from around the world, so some sort of "cloud" infrastructure seemed like a good idea. The more I try to do, the more I'm convinced Google has no fucking idea about what people like me want from it. So, the cloudy sorts of things I want:
Email: great! (which is why I though google might be good in the first place) Calenders: okay, no to-do lists Contacts: disaster, no syncing to the mac address book for Google Apps accounts, doesn't support CardDAV Documents: desktop option requires Google Apps pro, which charges per seat (no good, I want to be able to bring people in without having to worry about spiralling seat costs, but I would pay for usage!) Storage: no option except for their formatted docs (useless), went with Amazon S3 Billing: nothing Project Management: nothing
Integration between google services is shaky at best. It all feels horribly cobbled together. I've pretty much decided to give up on Google Apps for everything but email and calendering. Google sucks at the cloud. I wish they would concentrate more on protocols (CardDAV for a start), and less on web interfaces (yes I know they want you to use the web interface for ads, but I'd pay!).
Although I'm pretty tech savvy (for a non-pro), the thought of trying to set up all this stuff by myself makes my head hurt, and it's not my core business anyway.
Resources are resources man, you haven't addressed the fundamental basis of the argument I'm making. Time spent fixing or protecting against digital vandalism uses man-hours just as manufacturing a replacement windows (volunteer or not).
Just to drive home the point that the materials aren't the issue here, let's imagine a different scenario. A bunch of volunteers paint a mural, they don't use commercial paint, they use mud or ochre or whatever's around (no money involved). Now, imagine that people just come up to this mural and wipe bits off or scribble shit on it. You can even imagine that this is very easy to fix, and the volunteers keep fixing it. Does this make the actions of the people that wipe bits off the mural something other than vandalism? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
No, capitalism is when you allow pretend "persons" (companies) to raise capital without liabilities for real people. It works, but it's a kludge, and doesn't sit comfortably with the moral responsibilities implied by enlightenment individualism.
In Soviet Russia, satellites shut down weather service!
(Sorry)
Exactly. But I think Appleseed, Diaspora, and other open source social network software should be trying to create a standard protocol. Probably based on RSS or ATOM.
Gah, audiophiles...
The average quality of the stuff people are listening to has gone up drastically over the last few decades. When I was young, we used to listen to tape recorded from the freakin' radio on nasty Walkman earbuds. You could hardly hear it! At home, most people I knew had a tape deck/record player. I've played around with them now, and they sound terrible. Combine that with the fact that most people''s record collections were scratched, and the listening experience is far inferior to what most people seem to have today.
Look, you like spending hundreds/thousands to get that extra 5% out of your music, okay, that's fine. But this constant bitching about how everyone who doesn't is some sort of backward buffoon is really grating.
They will never be as thin and light as a tablet, and I think we've already seen that the dual nature of these things makes for a clunky interfaces.
The other driving factor will be that a lot of people won't even get a tablet, will just have a phone. It will interface with keyboards and monitors in the same way.
You don't get a portable keyboard.
You can learn to type pretty fast on a virtual keyboard, and it's just not a deal-breaker for most people to have to look at the keyboard (I can't touch type, and I do okay). I've seen people taking notes on iPads at conferences (it actually pretty common). They have the advantage of being completely silent. People just adapt.
Yep, phones will take a big chunk too, and I suspect they'll work the way you say. But tablets will be popular with people that want a larger screen on a mobile device.
Arg, I really should have qualified that, there is some great open source software of course.
Yep, because the people that make free open software have their heads up their arses over what most people want from their computing devices. And they certainly seem to lack broad vision about where this is all going in terms of user interaction.
I agree with a lot of that, except the stylus for writing. I can write faster on an iPad than I can with a stylus on glass (or even on paper, if I'm honest). I was hoping the iPad would come in a 7" model.
Totally agree about the sharing. Physical location is something developers have been ignoring for far too long. I frequently email people documents, even though they're in the same damn room! It's ridiculous.
Yep. It's the beginning, although I think it will take a few cheaper android tablets to really get this started -- tablets need to cost less than netbooks to replace them, and they will, in time.
What does that even mean?
Wait, was your original post POE?
... iPad? I think not.
That's because you're an AC on Slashdot, and live in a strange bubble world where iPods were "lame".
Yeah, no shit that's my opinion, who else's would it be?
And you can hook up an iPad to a projector, just as you can an iPod or iPhone. I'm sure other tablets are around with the same capabilities.
You're wrong. Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to. Fewer and fewer people will see the need to buy a desktop or laptop computer.
Want to place a wager on that? I bet this is the last we ever hear about this (not so new) laptablet. Android and the iPad will eat this shit alive.
Tablets are better for showing photos/artwork... well most kinds of presenting really. Consumption rather than production.
To all those thinking this doesn't sound new, and that we've had swivel laptop/tablets for a decade or more, you have to realise, this swivels on a different plane. A DIFFERENT PLANE.
You're an idiot.
It's slipping in the sense that desktop OSs will be a sideshow compared to mobile devices in a few years. Windows has failed to make headway in the mobile world.
You know, its fashionable to say "profit is what matters to x", but I just don't think that's true in a lot of cases. It's part of the motivation in companies, of course, but actually, I'm pretty damn sure Steve Jobs and a lot of people at Apple are strongly motivated by a concern for industrial design, and just making stuff they like.
This is almost certainly true of a lot of companies. Profit is hardly the only thing which motivates people.
Apart from that, you're right. Market share is a by-product for Apple. Profit and making shit they like are the two big motivators.
Sorry, won't sync to-do lists with software I use,
I'm not sure what point your making exactly, but why isn't it a (startup) business in a box? That would be really damn useful. They've gone halfway there, but left enough stuff unfinished or slightly broken, that it just won't do.
Even if we accept that it's really just communications infrastructure, it's still broken (contacts especially). "Cloud", done well, should mean that I can keep a bunch of stuff in sync with people over the internet. I can't really do that.
Google attracted me because it looked like they did offer this stuff, but on closer inspection they fail to offer several basic protocols and features. And to top it off, their web interface is in places quite slick, but overall a disjointed confusing mess.
I really don't want to go down the whole Apple everything route, but man it's tempting.
One very simple example: Do you have ever set up Google Apps for a domain, with email, contacts, calendar, Google sites and so on?
I have recently been trying to set up a small business using Google Apps infrastructure. I want to be able to work with people from around the world, so some sort of "cloud" infrastructure seemed like a good idea. The more I try to do, the more I'm convinced Google has no fucking idea about what people like me want from it. So, the cloudy sorts of things I want:
Email: great! (which is why I though google might be good in the first place)
Calenders: okay, no to-do lists
Contacts: disaster, no syncing to the mac address book for Google Apps accounts, doesn't support CardDAV
Documents: desktop option requires Google Apps pro, which charges per seat (no good, I want to be able to bring people in without having to worry about spiralling seat costs, but I would pay for usage!)
Storage: no option except for their formatted docs (useless), went with Amazon S3
Billing: nothing
Project Management: nothing
Integration between google services is shaky at best. It all feels horribly cobbled together. I've pretty much decided to give up on Google Apps for everything but email and calendering. Google sucks at the cloud. I wish they would concentrate more on protocols (CardDAV for a start), and less on web interfaces (yes I know they want you to use the web interface for ads, but I'd pay!).
Although I'm pretty tech savvy (for a non-pro), the thought of trying to set up all this stuff by myself makes my head hurt, and it's not my core business anyway.
Resources are resources man, you haven't addressed the fundamental basis of the argument I'm making. Time spent fixing or protecting against digital vandalism uses man-hours just as manufacturing a replacement windows (volunteer or not).
Just to drive home the point that the materials aren't the issue here, let's imagine a different scenario. A bunch of volunteers paint a mural, they don't use commercial paint, they use mud or ochre or whatever's around (no money involved). Now, imagine that people just come up to this mural and wipe bits off or scribble shit on it. You can even imagine that this is very easy to fix, and the volunteers keep fixing it. Does this make the actions of the people that wipe bits off the mural something other than vandalism? I don't think so.