Because, if it works halfway well, they can sell it to many large, conservative non-tech businesses that are at least half a decade away from even seriously considering deploying an iOS or Android device internally.
Most corporations move, tech-wise, at a glacial pace. You can sell them a brand they've been using for a quarter century; you can't sell them a brand that they haven't, even if it's the darling of the consumer marketplace (Apple) or the tech-savvy (Google).
The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that the latter's O/S is going to have more end users committing suicide instead of Foxconn employees.
Actually, I think reading of and maybe minor changes/notetaking on a Word document is a pretty good use case for a Windows tablet, especially in the business world.
Ditto spreadsheets.
Businesspeople who otherwise have no particular use/need for a laptop need to read these things in meetings all the time. The current typical solution involves the meeting organizer printing out a ton of paper copies.
, I'd like to pretend the other movies didn't happen.
I get that for X3, but X2? That's about as good of a movie as could ever be made out of X-Men as a source material.
Which isn't to say it's Citizen Kane, but sometimes what works in a comic doesn't work awesome in a movie, and given the limitations of the source material it's a pretty great movie.
It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy, sometimes what you want isn't what 99%+ of the voters want.
Beating the same dead horse again and again in this case isn't winning anyone over. People either care about LAN play or they don't, and most people don't and will never be persuaded by anything you can say to care.
Sometimes being vocal can win people over; in other cases it takes something different. This is one of those latter cases.
We get it; some people are still surly that SC2 doesn't have LAN play. There are valid reasons to feel that way. We still don't need to hear about it in each and every Starcraft-related story.
synchronization with data separation, mutex's and avoiding deadlocks and race conditions has been solved since almost the beginning of parallelism
And yet people constantly get these details wrong in practice.
It's an extra layer of complexity and it introduces extra chances to make mistakes, even around areas where a programmer could know better. There's not much way around that. If people only made coding mistakes around difficult problems software would be dramatically more bulletproof than it actually is.
What the hell? That's all Microsoft has ever done. Copied DOS, copied Apple's copy of Xerox's work, copied Java, copied WordPerfect, copied that spreadsheet app...
There's an interesting double standard (not necessarily held by the person I'm responding to) that when Microsoft copies someone else's work and improves on it it's copying or unoriginal, but when, say, Apple does it it's innovation.
You'll have to forgive me if I can't take being a drama queen with the added pretension of being the voice of the truth the man doesn't want us to know seriously..
Some of it's probably personal preference -- I'd personally rather use almost anything than Eclipse, though I know a lot of people love it. (For me, at its best, it's a pair of left-handed scissors and I'm right handed, and I don't get a lot of 'best' days.)
Some of it might be the versatility of the.NET framework with respect to language -- for example, if you prefer writing Python to Java, in theory in the.NET world you could just switch over to writing in IronPython instead of C# and call it a day, and either way it becomes.NET bytecode.
Some of it might just be a desire for competition. For several years Java was the de facto standard for solving a lot of kinds of problems -- for example, writing custom apps for businesses. That having happened, Java as a language really stagnated in a bad way. It wasn't until C# surpassed Java (in terms of features) that Java really got going and was driven to improve again. In that sense, even if you prefer Java or something else to.NET, having.NET around will probably spur it to be better.
i.e. Your countrymen had guns put to the back of their heads to force them to pay for your education. AFAIC, that's nothing more than the majority picking which highway robbers they prefer.
According to a book recently written by one of the managers of her campaign, she actually does/did read several Alaska-local papers every day -- but when put on the spot, she didn't want to give that answer for fear it would make her appear too provincial.
So instead she told a lie that made her look illiterate and/or intellectually uncurious instead.
I demand a little more from my politicians; I don't expect honesty, but want them to tell smarter lies.
It's not about what Sony "owes" anyone or what they deserve.
It's what it will take for consumers to be willing to take another chance on PSN.
Since so many popular games are crippled without online play, for the PS3 to be relevant, people have to want to use PSN. If they aren't, Sony essentially loses in the videogame arena forever and becomes a cautionary tale.
Personally? I can't even imagine what Sony could do at this point to make me want, for example, to give them my credit card number, so I am going to stop buying their products and get on with my life -- but not everyone thinks as I do, and there's some segment of the market they can win back over through naked bribery. As much as they can even semi-reasonably do so, they have to to remain relevant.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sony fucked up so bad with the security of their online play offering they've made Microsoft look good by comparison. Rehabilitating their image from that will not be easy -- it isn't the biggest mistake a gaming company's ever made by a longshot, but it's going to hurt their reputation badly for a long time, and there's a big market cost for that.
So wait, isn't that essentially "I overreact and I am stubborn about it?" I mean, sitting on a cold stove because it might be hot means that instead of learning to discern when a stove is hot and when it is cold, you're just shutting out the situation entirely. That seems rather an immature attitude to take...
Yep. That's basically what I was trying to say, but I was probably too subtle about it.
We all know by now that Test Driven Development is a best practice.
I certainly don't know that, although I do know that some people think it is.
It's kind of the stereotypical mistake of process: a technique that makes a lot of sense in some cases and produces great results in those cases is generalized to a lot of situations in which it's either useless or counterproductive.
Slashdot Mirror
... you know the apostraphe is there in the post in question, if not your quoting of it, right?
Also, I'm not using an iPad so your point would be moot either way.
Because, if it works halfway well, they can sell it to many large, conservative non-tech businesses that are at least half a decade away from even seriously considering deploying an iOS or Android device internally.
Most corporations move, tech-wise, at a glacial pace. You can sell them a brand they've been using for a quarter century; you can't sell them a brand that they haven't, even if it's the darling of the consumer marketplace (Apple) or the tech-savvy (Google).
The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that the latter's O/S is going to have more end users committing suicide instead of Foxconn employees.
Nah. Emo kids love iPhones.
Check it out next time your comparison shopping between android and windows tablets.
Today I learned that the iPad doesn't have a spelling/grammar checker. :)
See above.
Actually, I think reading of and maybe minor changes/notetaking on a Word document is a pretty good use case for a Windows tablet, especially in the business world.
Ditto spreadsheets.
Businesspeople who otherwise have no particular use/need for a laptop need to read these things in meetings all the time. The current typical solution involves the meeting organizer printing out a ton of paper copies.
Why would they want to?
It's easy to panic about whatever the latest disaster was rather than actually rationally evaluate the trade-offs of various options.
I'm not saying you're literally fellating Steve Jobs right now, but god damn are you ever doing it with words in that post.
Trying to be the man who gives 'jobs to Jobs, as it were.
Did anyone else read this headline as "Man Creates Open Source Fleshlight"?
Because man, what a different article that would be.
, I'd like to pretend the other movies didn't happen.
I get that for X3, but X2? That's about as good of a movie as could ever be made out of X-Men as a source material.
Which isn't to say it's Citizen Kane, but sometimes what works in a comic doesn't work awesome in a movie, and given the limitations of the source material it's a pretty great movie.
It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy, sometimes what you want isn't what 99%+ of the voters want.
Beating the same dead horse again and again in this case isn't winning anyone over. People either care about LAN play or they don't, and most people don't and will never be persuaded by anything you can say to care.
Sometimes being vocal can win people over; in other cases it takes something different. This is one of those latter cases.
Le grande beating-a-dead-horse sigh.
We get it; some people are still surly that SC2 doesn't have LAN play. There are valid reasons to feel that way. We still don't need to hear about it in each and every Starcraft-related story.
synchronization with data separation, mutex's and avoiding deadlocks and race conditions has been solved since almost the beginning of parallelism
And yet people constantly get these details wrong in practice.
It's an extra layer of complexity and it introduces extra chances to make mistakes, even around areas where a programmer could know better. There's not much way around that. If people only made coding mistakes around difficult problems software would be dramatically more bulletproof than it actually is.
See the difference? One takes, improves and sell, the other takes, hunts, kill and reigns.
The main difference I see is selectivity in the products you're comparing.
For example, is the XBox less innovative than the iPod? I don't think it is.
Pffft it can't keep Mongols out.
Haven't you philistines played Civ IV? Kids these days...
What the hell? That's all Microsoft has ever done. Copied DOS, copied Apple's copy of Xerox's work, copied Java, copied WordPerfect, copied that spreadsheet app ...
There's an interesting double standard (not necessarily held by the person I'm responding to) that when Microsoft copies someone else's work and improves on it it's copying or unoriginal, but when, say, Apple does it it's innovation.
I mean, The Great Wall was built piecemeal, over many rulers, and it never worked.
Pffft. Call me when Wikipedia can keep barbarian axemen from pillaging my cottages.
Great that he's getting out there and making his voice heard and educating people, but calling him a "famous" musician seems like a stretch to me.
Has an actual gun ever been pointed at you over taxes? A man with an AK-47 came to your door and handed you a W-2, perhaps? No?
Then you're a drama queen.
You'll have to forgive me if I can't take being a drama queen with the added pretension of being the voice of the truth the man doesn't want us to know seriously..
Some of it's probably personal preference -- I'd personally rather use almost anything than Eclipse, though I know a lot of people love it. (For me, at its best, it's a pair of left-handed scissors and I'm right handed, and I don't get a lot of 'best' days.)
Some of it might be the versatility of the .NET framework with respect to language -- for example, if you prefer writing Python to Java, in theory in the .NET world you could just switch over to writing in IronPython instead of C# and call it a day, and either way it becomes .NET bytecode.
Some of it might just be a desire for competition. For several years Java was the de facto standard for solving a lot of kinds of problems -- for example, writing custom apps for businesses. That having happened, Java as a language really stagnated in a bad way. It wasn't until C# surpassed Java (in terms of features) that Java really got going and was driven to improve again. In that sense, even if you prefer Java or something else to .NET, having .NET around will probably spur it to be better.
i.e. Your countrymen had guns put to the back of their heads to force them to pay for your education. AFAIC, that's nothing more than the majority picking which highway robbers they prefer.
That's a little overdramatic. A lot, really.
According to a book recently written by one of the managers of her campaign, she actually does/did read several Alaska-local papers every day -- but when put on the spot, she didn't want to give that answer for fear it would make her appear too provincial.
So instead she told a lie that made her look illiterate and/or intellectually uncurious instead.
I demand a little more from my politicians; I don't expect honesty, but want them to tell smarter lies.
I think you're missing the point.
It's not about what Sony "owes" anyone or what they deserve.
It's what it will take for consumers to be willing to take another chance on PSN.
Since so many popular games are crippled without online play, for the PS3 to be relevant, people have to want to use PSN. If they aren't, Sony essentially loses in the videogame arena forever and becomes a cautionary tale.
Personally? I can't even imagine what Sony could do at this point to make me want, for example, to give them my credit card number, so I am going to stop buying their products and get on with my life -- but not everyone thinks as I do, and there's some segment of the market they can win back over through naked bribery. As much as they can even semi-reasonably do so, they have to to remain relevant.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sony fucked up so bad with the security of their online play offering they've made Microsoft look good by comparison. Rehabilitating their image from that will not be easy -- it isn't the biggest mistake a gaming company's ever made by a longshot, but it's going to hurt their reputation badly for a long time, and there's a big market cost for that.
So wait, isn't that essentially "I overreact and I am stubborn about it?" I mean, sitting on a cold stove because it might be hot means that instead of learning to discern when a stove is hot and when it is cold, you're just shutting out the situation entirely. That seems rather an immature attitude to take...
Yep. That's basically what I was trying to say, but I was probably too subtle about it.
We all know by now that Test Driven Development is a best practice.
I certainly don't know that, although I do know that some people think it is.
It's kind of the stereotypical mistake of process: a technique that makes a lot of sense in some cases and produces great results in those cases is generalized to a lot of situations in which it's either useless or counterproductive.