Without copyright, old son, you'd likely not have a textbook. People still generally have this whole "pay me for my knowledge" defect, you see. I know you think information "wants to be free", but it's actually "freeloaders want information to be free", and the producers of information have a lot more value to society than the freeloaders do.
Now, when you can find a freely-given text (which is certainly doable in some cases), and get that into a curriculum (harder), that's just fine. But blaming copyright for availability issues... that's just wrong.
Plus, there is a durability/resale question. A textbook is pretty easily readable in 10 years, especially a math book, things aren't going to fundamentally change. History books, science books? Yeah. Math, English, etc? No.
That's not all there is to it. While the concepts may not change, the way they are taught may change not once, but several times. How problems are mixed together has been a subject of interest in just the last week; it apparently affects how well you actually learn. Approaches vary from learning times tables to handing the student a calculator. Something like an iPad makes it possible to stay current, or for that matter to take a mixed approach.
PCs are a hell of a lot easier to batch set up and load. AFAIK you can't just remotely load up 200 iPads, on the other hand its pretty damn easy to do that with PCs, just network boot them then push all the stuff in from the network.
iPads, however, can grab the textbook from the network. So it's trivial for the instructor to stand in front of the class, say "do this, do that, press here, read chapter one." Even so, should they turn out to have a natural home in the classroom (and I fully expect them to, they're bloody marvelous tools), how long do you think it'll be before Apple provides a central management tool?
I'll tell you what, it makes a lot more sense to carry an iPad than it does to carry a bunch of physical books. The sooner we move to e-books in the classroom, the better off we'll be. Both the students, and in general as a society.
boffins accepted that about 3.3Khz was the accepted frequency that telephone calls are going to run on
I bet boffins did. But they were wrong. Serves them right for being boffins, I suppose.
It's bandwidth, not frequency. In the USA, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) lines are 3 KHz, specifically 400 Hz to 3.4 KHz. 400 Hz is the low frequency, and that is way above the lowest tones in most voices; while 3.4 KHz, the highest frequency passed, is way below the highest tones in most voices. But the reason for the choice was this range provides very good intelligibility -- that is, ease of understanding -- for almost all voices, and at the time, wider bandwidth meant more expensive components multiplied by a huge, and growing, phone system.
Basically, many nuances of speech were foregone as a matter of financial triage.
AUP (read: rights of the community) always trumps individual rights.
Really? Where do you live? I know it's not in the USA, else your statement is ridiculous. Examples abound. Nazi and KKK rallies in communities who *really* would just as soon those people all go die slowly, horribly and screaming at the top of their lungs. Atheist t-shirts that offend the majority religionauts. Flag-burning (though that one has come close at times, the issue still falls to individual free speech, rather than the general populace's embrace of blind patriotism and symbolic worship.)
We have, mistakenly, often embraced "the community", but it's pretty well understood by anyone who can think straight that this is almost always the wrong way to go. Even so, "AUP always trumps individual rights" is balderdash within the context of the USA.
That's right - "gay" has been used for "lame" for decades now. The problem is that it is *also* used to indicate homosexuality.
When I was a kid (five decades ago, sigh), "you suck" was specifically meant to say that you performed fellatio. It was a fighting insult. Today, "you suck" or "it sucks" just means generic unwanted badness, perhaps with emotional overtones. Perhaps someone will be able to articulate the present meaning better than I can. But it doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Society changes, And corporations, being by nature psychotic, have a heck of a time trying to keep up. Look at Apple; perfectly happy to have massively violent games, head-shots, guts spilling out... but sex is cause for censorship. Absolutely out of their minds in the American Gothic, Religio-repressive tradition.
I can see Microsoft's position here, in the same way that I can see politicians pretending to be religious. There's no idiotic depth sociopaths will refuse to plumb if they think it will buy them something of value. And corporations, by their very nature, are sociopaths - one consequence being that they typically embrace the values of a pit viper, while trying to present the face of an angel.
Whatever gives you the idea that we plan to build and never develop thereafter?
Why, nothing. You having fun with that strawman? Did you get the optional vibrator attachment?
In any case, there's not a single camera system in the mainstream, HD or otherwise, which can't be defeated by.....a Hat and sunglasses.
You're entirely missing the point of video surveillance. It tells security many useful things other than just faces. When, where, how, what - all of these can help *lead* to "who", not to mention assist with insurance claims, police inquiries, exoneration of people who would or might otherwise be suspect, and future risk amelioration. The more useful detail recorded, the better.
[video is] only a single link in the chain.
Yes, of course. Again with the strawmen. You collect these things? You know they're a fire hazard, don't you?
Why do you think so? My libs are very well documented and designed to be both easy to use and strongly standalone... Are you saying that only programmers who have prior knowledge of standard libs are effective? Because that's pretty silly. From my pov, if you can't wrap your head around any one of my lib functions in five minutes, you're no more than a script kiddie. That's the point of a lib - to make common tasks easy.
But there's so much opportunity for graceful design with OO that strict C will never enjoy.
Just thought I'd throw this in. I write some pretty high performance code. I write in C. Not C++, but C. I use a *lot* of OO techniques. And I do that by writing in those capabilities from the bottom up. I have also, over the course of some four decades of programming, come up with my own libraries to do the things I've needed to do.
The benefits: I know exactly how and why everything works. Everything. List handling, memory management, local and global functions, constructors, destructors, objects, etc. If a bug is found, I can fix it, because it'll be in my code. My final executable is also typically a *lot* smaller, and a *lot* faster, and a *lot* better at memory management, than anything out there designed to do similar jobs. And my stuff is extremely portable.
The downside: It took me decades to get where I am.
In any case, I've simply not found a need to use C++, or C[whatever]. C is *very* powerful.
When I want a scripting language, I prefer Python. Between the two... there is very little I cannot accomplish. HTML, CSS, XML, SQL... these have their places too, but inevitably, I handle them, as much as I find they need handling, with C or Python, the choice generally being made depending on the ultimate performance required.
Right now, most security equipment is NTSC video; which means low resolution, crap recordings. But HD is here -- it's just that the multichannel DVRs and switches and so forth aren't really taking over from the crap NTSC stuff the way they should, even though it's been a couple years now. The difference between video and HD for security is *amazing*. I'm still stuck with video, and we've had a couple of incidents where the video should have helped... but you just can't make out details worth spit. With HD... whole 'nuther ball game -- we've got one HD monitor / recorded I cobbled up. It's amazing. Did I mention NTSC video sucks? Yeah. Sucks.
If I were you, I'd tell your company to wait a few years. Seriously. Otherwise you're going to be on the trailing edge of basically crappy security gear -- everyone else's control center will have the good stuff, and you'll still be trying to expense off a zillion bucks worth of junk.
...it's stereo, giving you exactly one viewing angle. Actual 3D presentation provides a 3D scene display, with the resulting ability to move your head around (which changes the angle of view), or even walk around the display. Stereovision like this has been around since the ViewMaster, and it's a cheap gimmick compared to a display system that takes viewing angle into account, like this, for example, or this.
With a real 3D display, there are so many things you could do... with stereo, you get exactly what you've been getting all along, that is, the single viewpoint they think you should have, and that's it. Yeah, you'll think you're perceiving depth, but that goes away the moment you move your head and the image doesn't change the way it should.
Because actual 3D isn't just about providing two different images (which is what stereovision does.) It's about providing the two images that match the viewing angle your position and head angle set up relative to the material being viewed.
Me, I'm good with 2D until 3D actually arrives. Stereovision... no thanks.
...then let's not throw around phrases like "theories accepted as truth."
A much better way to construct such a remark is "theories we presently have (very|extremely|) high confidence in."
Because I gotta tell ya, "truth" is one of those nasty words, like "belief", that usually - outside of logic and math, where it means something else - means someone is glossing over something, and it's probably not insignificant.
Just saying. You want a way to write about worldviews - including scientific ones - that doesn't trip you up, the best English-language concept I've ever run into is confidence. "Highly confident"; "Very little confidence"; it even allows for zero confidence and 100% confidence but it doesn't go around anointing ideas with either one by default the way the words "truth" and "believe" do. Allow for the possibility of change, and the acknowledgment of previous differences with "presently" (or whatever time frame is appropriate) and all of a sudden you sound like a reasonable person, because you're speaking reasonably.
It's much easier to speak accurately about everything from the big bang to Boyle's laws for gasses when you drop the truth thing and use confidence instead - it's *very* good for teaching, too.
No, it's nylons... and they only go down from the thigh (otherwise we're talking about pantyhose, which are a creation of the devil.) From the thigh up, it's garters. If you find turtles, retreat immediately. It's likely to get worse, and you don't want to know about that... guys that want to know about that become gynecologists. And no one with any sense at all wants to encounter dark matter. Also, garters first, panties (optional, of course), second.
Experimenting in this realm is highly recommended. Repeat a lot - you want to be sure.
I was comparing it to $0 / year for an antenna system or free streaming, actually. Can't imagine spending $400/year for cable. What for? For $400, the things you could do or buy... and you'd spend it watching the TV? There's the Internet, and you would *never* run out of things to watch for free there. Want to watch the Daily show? Go to the net, there it is, free, legal, etc. True for a *lot* of shows. ABC streams free content to my iPad, if I could only stand to watch it. I mean, I get that other people want to watch tv, but to pay $400/yr for it... that's kind of like setting your money on fire. Where is the benefit?
It's why the transformer in a power supply is often nowhere near 100% efficient as induction is how they work.
No. Power transformers can be designed to be very efficient - in the high 90% range. There are many subtleties to inductor design, and it is certainly possible to make a lousy, inefficient transformer, or simply to provide a poor impedance match to it, or do something stupid like rectify only 1/2 cycle... but that doesn't indict the transformer itself. In fact, switching power supplies use inductors as well, storing considerable energy in the field of the inductor, and losing very little at all.
My concern isn't efficiency anyway, it is simply can one get enough power over there to charge the iPad as fast as the batteries can reasonably be charged, and the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Efficiency is a different issue, and one I frankly don't think is worth being concerned about in the range we're talking about here. Although I bet Apple would worry about it. Wanting to be green and all, and thinking power consumption is part of that (I don't think so. I think rabid power consumption will get us out of the oil dependency business sooner, rather than later, and that this would be an extremely good thing.)
BTW, I'm an EE with many years of hardware design experience, so I do know just a little something about transformers, inductors, etc.
I disagree with that. OS X widgets are actually useful to me because of where they are kept.
Well, that's good for you, then. Me, I have multiple monitors, and I want the real estate used as well it can be. I like having a few things up there to refer to now and again, and all I want to do to get to it is shift my eyes; not change my typing focus or move the mouse. And, thanks to a tip in this thread, I've got those widgets out where I like them now. But I still think it should be a switch in the prefs. I don't care if you want them hidden, and I don't even care if it's the default, but geeze, let *me* use them the way *I* want to, too.
I didn't wait because I like it as is, as does my lady, and I didn't need to wait, and I like to encourage Apple when they're going in what I consider the right direction.
So I like the iPad... but I want to like it a great deal more. Is that a problem for you? Some reason I shouldn't feel that way that you know of?
Look at your post, now look at mine, now look back at yours and wonder what's wrong with it, and then look at mine to find out:
Ok, I can do that. I'll keep score as we go.
why does the iPad need "cameras" (plural)? Do you want to be "that" guy holding something the size of a book up to take a picture?
Facing-away camera: Your kid is doing something funny, and the iPad is in your hand. Or you want to scan a DVD or CD or Action figure or whatever for your catalog(s.) Or you're Mr Fortune 500 Dude, and you want to use this as an inventory device. Or for any other reason we like 'em on our cameras.... because they're handy. Trying to argue that they aren't handy is both disingenuous and... well, kinda stupid. On top of the handy thing, the iPad's got a very pretty display. I know, because I use mine for (among other things) a portable photo portfolio. So it's a great match for photo display. It can *also* do some pretty fabulous editing; it's got enough power and memory to do quite a bit, and I would know, because I write that stuff for a living.
Facing camera: So you can cam-chat with your sons and nephew and sister, who don't live at home with you, or your elderly stepmother, who lives in Greece (Hi, Judy!) because such things are huge fun and etc., and IF there was $2 worth of camera hardware in there (if that) it'd be awesome. You did notice the facing camera in the laptop, right? And the photobooth app? You think there's a reason Apple did that? Front facing and all? Nah, couldn't be, right?
So far, me 2, you zero. Moving along.
IR emission - I'm guessing you want to replace your remote control with the iPad for some reason. I guess you've never owned a Palm Pilot or a Windows CE device with their IR emitters that were next to useless. If you really wanted to replace your remote, you need both a transmitter and receiver to capture IR codes that aren't supported
Wrong. Again. I do own a Palm. But more importantly, I own a Logitech remote, and I crave that kind of function on the iPad, which has a MUCH better display and interface. Also, I didn't say I wanted a *shitty* IR emitter, you know. I want an Apple one, and they've never built shitty that I've seen. I fully expect that if they added the feature, the IR emitter would be fabulous. And it isn't that I want to replace my IR remote, it is that I want to replace my IR remote(S.) There are quite a few. The Logitech does ok, but it could be a lot better. Why is the Logitech limited? Display, that's why.
So far, me 3, you still holding steady at zero.
Bezel wastage - go complain about that on every other device you own that has a screen - your TV, your laptop, your cellphones, your alarm clock. If you cut that bezel off, try using your iPad without blocking the screen.
[stares at phone... at ipod touch... at laptop... no bezel wastage and no problem on any of 'em. Stares at ipad - basically an ipod writ large - but huge wastage.] Because it's designed to be held by the edges. But it is too big for that. And the iPad (which, if you had read the thread before posting, you would know) I have already said should have been designed with a stand in the back that was intended to give you a one-hand grip. Then, no need for bezel. Well, other than that really cool wireless charging idea...
Oh, look: me 4, you've got zero in your kung-fu grip and just won't let go!
AT&T - I'm sorry you live in the US of A - us other Americans don't have this problem. There's also the option of not getting the 3G model.
What? That's incomprehensible. -1 for failing to read what you wrote before you pressed submit. For the record, I live in the USA, AT&T doesn't service this area, and you can't get an iPhone here. If you'd like to try to make a cogent comment on th
Get the price down low enough and people will purchase 10 times as much stuff, but we have to be able to keep it and to play it on whatever we want.
Totally. If we were talking about *permanent* ownership of a TV show for.99 -- well, that's something else: there are a few series, and the very occasional stand-alone show I'd be interested in, and I am *really* not a fan of the tube.
I mean, you can DVR a show and keep it around for quite some time (as long as you can spare the space), for free. I just can't wrap my head around this whole "stream once for.99" thing they're cobbling together.
If you watch ONE show a night on that thing, you're going to have tossed $365 out the window over the course of a year. And you will have exactly nothing to show for it. If I'm going to put $365 or more down for something I can't keep, I'm going to hire me a model and do a really erotic lingerie shoot, or something along those lines. I mean, there's spending money, and there is throwing it right the heck out the window.
I think results vary. Every time I start it - and I mean *every* time - the audio is about 2 seconds behind. I quit it, start it again, and it works correctly. Every time I want to play, I have to set my mind to expect to restart the huge thing, so I don't get irritated and shaft my playing mood right out of the gate.
And I will freely admit that I don't find Logic intuitive, or the docs very well done. I know there's a lot of power in there, but I'm not doing well at finding it.
Very interesting, thank you. I'll look into this. I'm just wondering what the downside is, if any. Memory leaks, etc... you'd think if it was this easy to make it work properly - a single switch - they'd have put it in the prefs somewhere.
No, I'm not confused. The problem today is that the OS, and the apps, are huge by win 3.1 standards.
So while a few hundred mb was quite the workspace for windows, and even for things like redhat 9, it's insufficient for a machine that runs apps that are as large as 160 mb, and where the small ones are still in the 5 mb range or so; and the OS itself is huge - my iPad reports about 112 mb of ram free right now... and you know the whole OS isn't loaded; lots of stuff, unused, is either paged out or never got paged in or loaded as yet. You run a couple apps that use disjoint elements of the OS and you'll find out how limiting the available ram is in one big hurry.
I brought up win 3.1 because the execution model there is similar to the model for IOS; it doesn't really multitask, it is running this, or that, or the other. Not all three, priority scheduling, etc. IOS has all the bones needed to multitask, no question about it. But it's intentionally crippled to not do it because the ram isn't sufficient to the jobs at hand.
Why would Apple produce a desktop machine when desktop machine sales are falling?
Because an OSX desktop isn't a Windows desktop; OSX sales are rising. Rather well, too. From my end, the "why" is because I'd like to get five or six of them. From their end, presumably, they'd like to collect my money. They are *not* going to sell me more mac minis (at least, not the way they're going right now), they are *not* going to sell me anything with a built-in screen that isn't a highly portable device, and they're not going to sell me five-six macpros, because although I'm definitely the go-to guy for computers in this family, I'd like to have some cookie jar money left over; and as far as macbooks and macbook pros go, we have those, and frankly, the chiclet keyboards are the killer across the whole laptop line -- you can't write on them worth a darn unless you're a hunt-n-pecker. Everyone here can actually type, so those things are looked on with considerable distaste.
A tower would allow Apple to make a machine that was somewhere in the affordable range - easily under $500. It would let us pick and choose monitors and keyboards and mice. Just like the mini, only not so bloody expensive. Five $500 machines is less than ONE mac pro. It's a market segment they aren't addressing at all. So, IMHO at least, they should.
I might even outfit one of my businesses with towers like that, if and when. That would be quite a few machines. But again, there's nothing in the product line right now that makes me want to do that.
In the meantime, the fam's got five minis, and that's where we will sit. A lot of people want small towers. Maybe Apple will wake up some day to that clamoring.
Slashdot Mirror
Pit vipers don't have values, you see.
Without copyright, old son, you'd likely not have a textbook. People still generally have this whole "pay me for my knowledge" defect, you see. I know you think information "wants to be free", but it's actually "freeloaders want information to be free", and the producers of information have a lot more value to society than the freeloaders do.
Now, when you can find a freely-given text (which is certainly doable in some cases), and get that into a curriculum (harder), that's just fine. But blaming copyright for availability issues... that's just wrong.
That's not all there is to it. While the concepts may not change, the way they are taught may change not once, but several times. How problems are mixed together has been a subject of interest in just the last week; it apparently affects how well you actually learn. Approaches vary from learning times tables to handing the student a calculator. Something like an iPad makes it possible to stay current, or for that matter to take a mixed approach.
iPads, however, can grab the textbook from the network. So it's trivial for the instructor to stand in front of the class, say "do this, do that, press here, read chapter one." Even so, should they turn out to have a natural home in the classroom (and I fully expect them to, they're bloody marvelous tools), how long do you think it'll be before Apple provides a central management tool?
I'll tell you what, it makes a lot more sense to carry an iPad than it does to carry a bunch of physical books. The sooner we move to e-books in the classroom, the better off we'll be. Both the students, and in general as a society.
It's just you. We don't read the TFA; the only reason we click on those links is we like to crush people's servers. Get with the program, please.
I bet boffins did. But they were wrong. Serves them right for being boffins, I suppose.
It's bandwidth, not frequency. In the USA, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) lines are 3 KHz, specifically 400 Hz to 3.4 KHz. 400 Hz is the low frequency, and that is way above the lowest tones in most voices; while 3.4 KHz, the highest frequency passed, is way below the highest tones in most voices. But the reason for the choice was this range provides very good intelligibility -- that is, ease of understanding -- for almost all voices, and at the time, wider bandwidth meant more expensive components multiplied by a huge, and growing, phone system.
Basically, many nuances of speech were foregone as a matter of financial triage.
Really? Where do you live? I know it's not in the USA, else your statement is ridiculous. Examples abound. Nazi and KKK rallies in communities who *really* would just as soon those people all go die slowly, horribly and screaming at the top of their lungs. Atheist t-shirts that offend the majority religionauts. Flag-burning (though that one has come close at times, the issue still falls to individual free speech, rather than the general populace's embrace of blind patriotism and symbolic worship.)
We have, mistakenly, often embraced "the community", but it's pretty well understood by anyone who can think straight that this is almost always the wrong way to go. Even so, "AUP always trumps individual rights" is balderdash within the context of the USA.
That's right - "gay" has been used for "lame" for decades now. The problem is that it is *also* used to indicate homosexuality.
When I was a kid (five decades ago, sigh), "you suck" was specifically meant to say that you performed fellatio. It was a fighting insult. Today, "you suck" or "it sucks" just means generic unwanted badness, perhaps with emotional overtones. Perhaps someone will be able to articulate the present meaning better than I can. But it doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Society changes, And corporations, being by nature psychotic, have a heck of a time trying to keep up. Look at Apple; perfectly happy to have massively violent games, head-shots, guts spilling out... but sex is cause for censorship. Absolutely out of their minds in the American Gothic, Religio-repressive tradition.
I can see Microsoft's position here, in the same way that I can see politicians pretending to be religious. There's no idiotic depth sociopaths will refuse to plumb if they think it will buy them something of value. And corporations, by their very nature, are sociopaths - one consequence being that they typically embrace the values of a pit viper, while trying to present the face of an angel.
Why, nothing. You having fun with that strawman? Did you get the optional vibrator attachment?
You're entirely missing the point of video surveillance. It tells security many useful things other than just faces. When, where, how, what - all of these can help *lead* to "who", not to mention assist with insurance claims, police inquiries, exoneration of people who would or might otherwise be suspect, and future risk amelioration. The more useful detail recorded, the better.
Yes, of course. Again with the strawmen. You collect these things? You know they're a fire hazard, don't you?
Thanks for the tip.
Why do you think so? My libs are very well documented and designed to be both easy to use and strongly standalone ... Are you saying that only programmers who have prior knowledge of standard libs are effective? Because that's pretty silly. From my pov, if you can't wrap your head around any one of my lib functions in five minutes, you're no more than a script kiddie. That's the point of a lib - to make common tasks easy.
Just thought I'd throw this in. I write some pretty high performance code. I write in C. Not C++, but C. I use a *lot* of OO techniques. And I do that by writing in those capabilities from the bottom up. I have also, over the course of some four decades of programming, come up with my own libraries to do the things I've needed to do.
The benefits: I know exactly how and why everything works. Everything. List handling, memory management, local and global functions, constructors, destructors, objects, etc. If a bug is found, I can fix it, because it'll be in my code. My final executable is also typically a *lot* smaller, and a *lot* faster, and a *lot* better at memory management, than anything out there designed to do similar jobs. And my stuff is extremely portable.
The downside: It took me decades to get where I am.
In any case, I've simply not found a need to use C++, or C[whatever]. C is *very* powerful.
When I want a scripting language, I prefer Python. Between the two... there is very little I cannot accomplish. HTML, CSS, XML, SQL... these have their places too, but inevitably, I handle them, as much as I find they need handling, with C or Python, the choice generally being made depending on the ultimate performance required.
Right now, most security equipment is NTSC video; which means low resolution, crap recordings. But HD is here -- it's just that the multichannel DVRs and switches and so forth aren't really taking over from the crap NTSC stuff the way they should, even though it's been a couple years now. The difference between video and HD for security is *amazing*. I'm still stuck with video, and we've had a couple of incidents where the video should have helped... but you just can't make out details worth spit. With HD... whole 'nuther ball game -- we've got one HD monitor / recorded I cobbled up. It's amazing. Did I mention NTSC video sucks? Yeah. Sucks.
If I were you, I'd tell your company to wait a few years. Seriously. Otherwise you're going to be on the trailing edge of basically crappy security gear -- everyone else's control center will have the good stuff, and you'll still be trying to expense off a zillion bucks worth of junk.
With a real 3D display, there are so many things you could do... with stereo, you get exactly what you've been getting all along, that is, the single viewpoint they think you should have, and that's it. Yeah, you'll think you're perceiving depth, but that goes away the moment you move your head and the image doesn't change the way it should.
Because actual 3D isn't just about providing two different images (which is what stereovision does.) It's about providing the two images that match the viewing angle your position and head angle set up relative to the material being viewed.
Me, I'm good with 2D until 3D actually arrives. Stereovision... no thanks.
A much better way to construct such a remark is "theories we presently have (very|extremely|) high confidence in."
Because I gotta tell ya, "truth" is one of those nasty words, like "belief", that usually - outside of logic and math, where it means something else - means someone is glossing over something, and it's probably not insignificant.
Just saying. You want a way to write about worldviews - including scientific ones - that doesn't trip you up, the best English-language concept I've ever run into is confidence. "Highly confident"; "Very little confidence"; it even allows for zero confidence and 100% confidence but it doesn't go around anointing ideas with either one by default the way the words "truth" and "believe" do. Allow for the possibility of change, and the acknowledgment of previous differences with "presently" (or whatever time frame is appropriate) and all of a sudden you sound like a reasonable person, because you're speaking reasonably.
It's much easier to speak accurately about everything from the big bang to Boyle's laws for gasses when you drop the truth thing and use confidence instead - it's *very* good for teaching, too.
No, it's nylons... and they only go down from the thigh (otherwise we're talking about pantyhose, which are a creation of the devil.) From the thigh up, it's garters. If you find turtles, retreat immediately. It's likely to get worse, and you don't want to know about that... guys that want to know about that become gynecologists. And no one with any sense at all wants to encounter dark matter. Also, garters first, panties (optional, of course), second.
Experimenting in this realm is highly recommended. Repeat a lot - you want to be sure.
Mmmmm.... Nylons....
I was comparing it to $0 / year for an antenna system or free streaming, actually. Can't imagine spending $400/year for cable. What for? For $400, the things you could do or buy... and you'd spend it watching the TV? There's the Internet, and you would *never* run out of things to watch for free there. Want to watch the Daily show? Go to the net, there it is, free, legal, etc. True for a *lot* of shows. ABC streams free content to my iPad, if I could only stand to watch it. I mean, I get that other people want to watch tv, but to pay $400/yr for it... that's kind of like setting your money on fire. Where is the benefit?
No. Power transformers can be designed to be very efficient - in the high 90% range. There are many subtleties to inductor design, and it is certainly possible to make a lousy, inefficient transformer, or simply to provide a poor impedance match to it, or do something stupid like rectify only 1/2 cycle... but that doesn't indict the transformer itself. In fact, switching power supplies use inductors as well, storing considerable energy in the field of the inductor, and losing very little at all.
My concern isn't efficiency anyway, it is simply can one get enough power over there to charge the iPad as fast as the batteries can reasonably be charged, and the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Efficiency is a different issue, and one I frankly don't think is worth being concerned about in the range we're talking about here. Although I bet Apple would worry about it. Wanting to be green and all, and thinking power consumption is part of that (I don't think so. I think rabid power consumption will get us out of the oil dependency business sooner, rather than later, and that this would be an extremely good thing.)
BTW, I'm an EE with many years of hardware design experience, so I do know just a little something about transformers, inductors, etc.
Well, that's good for you, then. Me, I have multiple monitors, and I want the real estate used as well it can be. I like having a few things up there to refer to now and again, and all I want to do to get to it is shift my eyes; not change my typing focus or move the mouse. And, thanks to a tip in this thread, I've got those widgets out where I like them now. But I still think it should be a switch in the prefs. I don't care if you want them hidden, and I don't even care if it's the default, but geeze, let *me* use them the way *I* want to, too.
I didn't wait because I like it as is, as does my lady, and I didn't need to wait, and I like to encourage Apple when they're going in what I consider the right direction.
So I like the iPad... but I want to like it a great deal more. Is that a problem for you? Some reason I shouldn't feel that way that you know of?
Ok, I can do that. I'll keep score as we go.
Facing-away camera: Your kid is doing something funny, and the iPad is in your hand. Or you want to scan a DVD or CD or Action figure or whatever for your catalog(s.) Or you're Mr Fortune 500 Dude, and you want to use this as an inventory device. Or for any other reason we like 'em on our cameras.... because they're handy. Trying to argue that they aren't handy is both disingenuous and... well, kinda stupid. On top of the handy thing, the iPad's got a very pretty display. I know, because I use mine for (among other things) a portable photo portfolio. So it's a great match for photo display. It can *also* do some pretty fabulous editing; it's got enough power and memory to do quite a bit, and I would know, because I write that stuff for a living.
Facing camera: So you can cam-chat with your sons and nephew and sister, who don't live at home with you, or your elderly stepmother, who lives in Greece (Hi, Judy!) because such things are huge fun and etc., and IF there was $2 worth of camera hardware in there (if that) it'd be awesome. You did notice the facing camera in the laptop, right? And the photobooth app? You think there's a reason Apple did that? Front facing and all? Nah, couldn't be, right?
So far, me 2, you zero. Moving along.
Wrong. Again. I do own a Palm. But more importantly, I own a Logitech remote, and I crave that kind of function on the iPad, which has a MUCH better display and interface. Also, I didn't say I wanted a *shitty* IR emitter, you know. I want an Apple one, and they've never built shitty that I've seen. I fully expect that if they added the feature, the IR emitter would be fabulous. And it isn't that I want to replace my IR remote, it is that I want to replace my IR remote(S.) There are quite a few. The Logitech does ok, but it could be a lot better. Why is the Logitech limited? Display, that's why.
So far, me 3, you still holding steady at zero.
[stares at phone... at ipod touch... at laptop... no bezel wastage and no problem on any of 'em. Stares at ipad - basically an ipod writ large - but huge wastage.] Because it's designed to be held by the edges. But it is too big for that. And the iPad (which, if you had read the thread before posting, you would know) I have already said should have been designed with a stand in the back that was intended to give you a one-hand grip. Then, no need for bezel. Well, other than that really cool wireless charging idea...
Oh, look: me 4, you've got zero in your kung-fu grip and just won't let go!
What? That's incomprehensible. -1 for failing to read what you wrote before you pressed submit. For the record, I live in the USA, AT&T doesn't service this area, and you can't get an iPhone here. If you'd like to try to make a cogent comment on th
Totally. If we were talking about *permanent* ownership of a TV show for .99 -- well, that's something else: there are a few series, and the very occasional stand-alone show I'd be interested in, and I am *really* not a fan of the tube.
I mean, you can DVR a show and keep it around for quite some time (as long as you can spare the space), for free. I just can't wrap my head around this whole "stream once for .99" thing they're cobbling together.
If you watch ONE show a night on that thing, you're going to have tossed $365 out the window over the course of a year. And you will have exactly nothing to show for it. If I'm going to put $365 or more down for something I can't keep, I'm going to hire me a model and do a really erotic lingerie shoot, or something along those lines. I mean, there's spending money, and there is throwing it right the heck out the window.
I think results vary. Every time I start it - and I mean *every* time - the audio is about 2 seconds behind. I quit it, start it again, and it works correctly. Every time I want to play, I have to set my mind to expect to restart the huge thing, so I don't get irritated and shaft my playing mood right out of the gate.
And I will freely admit that I don't find Logic intuitive, or the docs very well done. I know there's a lot of power in there, but I'm not doing well at finding it.
Mainstage is much easier -- and much simpler.
Very interesting, thank you. I'll look into this. I'm just wondering what the downside is, if any. Memory leaks, etc... you'd think if it was this easy to make it work properly - a single switch - they'd have put it in the prefs somewhere.
No, I'm not confused. The problem today is that the OS, and the apps, are huge by win 3.1 standards.
So while a few hundred mb was quite the workspace for windows, and even for things like redhat 9, it's insufficient for a machine that runs apps that are as large as 160 mb, and where the small ones are still in the 5 mb range or so; and the OS itself is huge - my iPad reports about 112 mb of ram free right now... and you know the whole OS isn't loaded; lots of stuff, unused, is either paged out or never got paged in or loaded as yet. You run a couple apps that use disjoint elements of the OS and you'll find out how limiting the available ram is in one big hurry.
I brought up win 3.1 because the execution model there is similar to the model for IOS; it doesn't really multitask, it is running this, or that, or the other. Not all three, priority scheduling, etc. IOS has all the bones needed to multitask, no question about it. But it's intentionally crippled to not do it because the ram isn't sufficient to the jobs at hand.
Because an OSX desktop isn't a Windows desktop; OSX sales are rising. Rather well, too. From my end, the "why" is because I'd like to get five or six of them. From their end, presumably, they'd like to collect my money. They are *not* going to sell me more mac minis (at least, not the way they're going right now), they are *not* going to sell me anything with a built-in screen that isn't a highly portable device, and they're not going to sell me five-six macpros, because although I'm definitely the go-to guy for computers in this family, I'd like to have some cookie jar money left over; and as far as macbooks and macbook pros go, we have those, and frankly, the chiclet keyboards are the killer across the whole laptop line -- you can't write on them worth a darn unless you're a hunt-n-pecker. Everyone here can actually type, so those things are looked on with considerable distaste.
A tower would allow Apple to make a machine that was somewhere in the affordable range - easily under $500. It would let us pick and choose monitors and keyboards and mice. Just like the mini, only not so bloody expensive. Five $500 machines is less than ONE mac pro. It's a market segment they aren't addressing at all. So, IMHO at least, they should.
I might even outfit one of my businesses with towers like that, if and when. That would be quite a few machines. But again, there's nothing in the product line right now that makes me want to do that.
In the meantime, the fam's got five minis, and that's where we will sit. A lot of people want small towers. Maybe Apple will wake up some day to that clamoring.