I might have agreed with you when I was just a few years younger, back when my friends all had fewer responsibilities. Once everyone you know is married and has two kids, and it takes a months advanced planning just to get together with somebody for dinner, you will appreciate having a nicely asynchronous way to keep in touch.
I resisted facebook for a long time, but in the end I'm grateful to be back in regular contact with close friends that are far more available online than in meatspace. They aren't people I don't really care about -- they are people I do care about and don't get to spend much quality time with in any other way.
Having it in his will won't make it happen though. Facebook is the legal owner of the data, and putting something in your will is not a magic incantation that dispels inconvenient legal realities.
When my first fiancee died, her wishes were to be buried, unembalmed and without a casket and such, so that her nutrients would be returned to the earth. Nice sentiment, but it's not legal (most places) to bury someone without a sealed vault of some kind. So we had her cremated, and scattered the ashes.
The unfortunate fact is that dying does not automatically mean you get your way.
YOU clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics. While it is true the decoherence hinges entirely on human actions, that statement is too general. It hinges entirely on human actions between 1930 and 1945, resulting in universes which are primarily distinguished by having had different outcomes to World War II.
Apologies if it has already been mentioned (I don't want to search through 8 pages of comments to find out) but check out the 1936 novel War with the Newts by Karel Capek. A satirical work exploring what happens after the discovery of another species of sentient earthlings.
In point of fact, recent studies have concluded that chimps have evolved more than humans since the split from the common ancestor. That is, there have been a greater number of distinct evolutionary changes at the genetic level on the chimp line than the human line.
Air is necessary for the read/write head to operate. The piece that comes into close proximity of the platter is essentially a tiny hovercraft. It's about the size of a pepper flake, and has a microscopic pattern called an "air bearing" carved into the side facing the platter. Designing this air bearing is an exercise in fluid dynamics -- it is the shape of the bearing and how air flows over it that allows the read/write head to skim over the surface of the platter at a distance measured in microns without actually contacting the surface of the platter.
If the read/write head does contact the surface of the platter, that is called a head crash, and is bad.
Isn't it quite telling that the pharmaceutical companies refuse to make a vaccine that can protect you from every pathogen that will ever emerge in the future? If they did that, they'd be out of business right?
Isn't it quite telling that the food companies refuse to make a magical pot pie that when you eat it you will live forever and never need to ingest calories again? If they did that they'd be out of business right?
Isn't it quite telling that the toilet paper companies refuse to make a bathroom tissue that will scotch-guard your ass-cheeks so you never have to wipe again? If they did that, they'd be out of business right?
Unfortunately the copyright goes to the creator of the work, not to the work itself. You probably owe damages to your parents for unauthorized use of your identity.
Fair enough, I was assuming that the presence of a human in the burning building was apparant; yelling for help, waving out the window, or whatever.
And you are right that obviously the first law doesn't come into play if the robot is unaware of danger to the human. I recall some of Asimov's stories dealing with that specifically. (Though your example of a robot not knowing humans need air is a bit out there -- what good is an AI if it's built without any basic knowledge of how the world works)?
The situations where saving one human endangers another are also ones he explored. That was always the focus of stories featuring the three laws -- exploring the edge cases in which what the robot would do and why it would do so are not well defined and predictable.
Okay, I know that I'm being extremely pedantic, so don't take it as an insult or anything. I just have to point out that you've incorrectly applied the three laws in a couple of spots here.
Imagine you get ordered to run into a building to rescue a human, knowing that your chance to survive is almost zero and you are compelled to do it, whether you want or not. (emphasis mine).
It would not matter if you were ordered to run into the building, as you would be compelled to do so by the first law. It states that you can neither harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. Same result, but the "being ordered" part would never come into play.
Imagine you're ordered to make a fool out of yourself and you have to do it because the order comes from a human and you have to obey it as long as it doesn't harm you physically. (emphasis mine).
Even if it did harm you physically, you would still have to obey. The second law requires you to obey all orders given to you by humans, except where those orders would conflict with the first law. Your directive to protect yourself from harm is the third law, which only applies so long as it doesn't conflict with the first or second laws. In this case, the second law has precedence.
Again, this doesn't really change your scenario any, but since all of Asimov's short stories on the three laws dealt specifically with figuring out the logically result of the three laws in actual situations, I felt compelled to be picky about it. No offense is intended.
These are all valid reasons to keep a land line around, but for me they are just not enough to justify paying for one. I think we are going through a long transitional period in which the benefits of a land line over a mobile phone are gradually diminishing to the point where if you are going to have a mobile anyway, it no longer makes sense to pay for a land line as well.
I get my internet through the cable company.
My security alarm works via cellular as well. (Even if I did have a land line, the alarm would STILL have a cellular backup, so that one cannot simply cut the phone line before breaking into the house).
The sound quality on my mobile is "good enough."
Someone was trying to sell me phone service the other day and brought up that tired old refrain about how if there is an emergency, a land line works even when the power is out. I've never found that very compelling. Our mobile phones also work even when the power is out, unless all of the following are true:
My battery is dead My wife's battery is dead My laptop's battery and my wife's laptop's battery are both dead The two UPS's powering my desktop, router, cable modem, etc, are both dead The batteries in my car, my motorcycle, and my wife's car are all dead, and furthermore, those vehicles are all out of gasoline.
If all those conditions are met, then yes, I will be unable to place a call. It's a risk, but not one that I am willing to pay to mitigate.
None of this is meant to criticize your individual choices for your own situation, your post was just a convenient jumping off point for my own take on the matter.
Who knows. I'm not speculating on the nature of the disturbance. I am just pointing out that objects in space can rotate in three dimensions, and if you set something rotating, however slowly, on any axis, it will keep rotating on that axis until some force counteracts that rotation.
Anything at all that can cause the stars ecliptic plane to rotate relative to the orbital plane of the planet could eventually lead to the planet orbiting retrograde to the spin of the star. Note that both planes could be set rotating by an event; as long as they rotate at different rates, however slight, it doesn't change the fact that at some point in time they will be in a retrograde configuration.
Would it would take more energy to add another direction of rotation to a star than to alter the orbit of a planet sufficiently that it becomes retrograde? Maybe, probably, yeah. I don't know. Someone who knows the math can work it out. It's all relative anyway.
All I said was that it wouldn't "rip the star apart."
Flipping the spin of the star is not that incredible and wouldn't require tearing it apart. You don't have to stop it spinning and then start it spinning in the opposite direction. Just tilt the still spinning star 180 degrees on it's axis, so that the "north" pole is now the "south" pole and vice versa.
Seems to me like sometime after the formation of the system, some perturbation could have caused the star to gradually tilt until it was "upside down" in relation to the orbit of the planet.
The post was 3 sentences long. I am not ignoring tone, but suggesting that you perceived one that wasn't there. As we know, that happens frequently with written communications such as forum posts.
Your reaction indicated that you perceived his post as derisive towards those with psychiatric disorders, and you felt the need to scold him for it. I was only trying to point out that I see nothing in his post that comes off to me as defamatory, and that I think you are criticizing him for an attitude he did not express. Which words or phrases in his brief post constituted this "tone" that was so insulting?
All I see is two rhetorical questions which are dismissive of the notion that this man is allergic to wi-fi, followed by the conclusion that because this notion is obviously false, the man must be suffering from mental illness. None of it strikes me as derisive towards the individual in question. Dismissive of his delusional claim, yes; but that claim is worthy of being dismissed.
As this whole discussion between us came about because it is hard to perceive tone in the written word, I would like to add that I don't mean for this to come off as combative, and that I overreacted by using the word pretentious. I just don't like to see a person publicly shamed for his tone when that tone is very likely a creation of the reader's mind.
How does saying that someone "has some mental problems" qualify as name-calling? It sounds to me like a perfectly polite and correct way of expressing that they have fallen prey to "psychological and cognitive shortcomings inherent in everybody."
I mean, if MightyMartian had said he was a fucking whackjob nutcase or something, you would have a point; but he merely stated that they guy appears to have mental problems. That's no different than your own analysis. Granted, his wording was less pretentious than yours, but it was in no way name-calling, nor did it misrepresent the problem.
If you must accuse someone of being insensitive, find an appropriate target. I suggest the editors for posting this article to begin with, as a story highlighting one individual's delusions is not particularly newsworthy.
I'm sure it isn't ready for prime time yet, but you seem to be criticizing a tech demo for being a tech demo.
Of course there are going to be glitches and limitations, and of course there are no games for it yet. It was just a tech demo. An exciting one if you ask me -- I want to know when it will be done so I can get it! You seem to be of the opinion that nobody should hear of its existence until it is production ready and hits store shelves with a dozen games along side it.
Oh, and a dark room is not going to be a problem. Project Natal floods the room in infrared light, which its camera can see in, and you can't.
You are off by half a mile per hour on the speed, and a factor of 100 on the power. Please travel back 30 years and prevent your geek card from ever being issued.
Hell, PG&E is full of morons. I *GAVE* them a damned idea that would save MILLIONS and cost very little to implement. I even did the research myself.
Let me see if I understand you. You had a million dollar idea, invested your time in the research necessary to demonstrate its viability, and then you *GAVE* it away for free. And the people you gave it to are the morons?
Deal with consumers? No, I suppose not, in that I am neither a salesperson, nor a marketer, nor a tech-support representative. I do happen to know some consumers, though. I and everybody I know is one, in fact.
I am trying to think like a consumer here. I follow your argument that a lot of the general population does not use most of the features on their phone, and that historically smart phones have been non-intuitive to use. But I think you are missing (or that we just disagree) on two things.
Firstly, that smart-phone interfaces have gotten a LOT less complicated. The iPhone is a poster child of simple, obvious, controls. It's a simple panel of icons, just like that modified Xandros on the EEE. My mother even got a Blackberry Storm recently, and I assure you she is not a techie.
Secondly, these John and Jane Publics that you mention, who prefer basic phones and are going to snap up all the netbooks because they know how a laptop works -- I don't think they are in this market at all. You think that they don't use smart-phones because they are intimidated by them or can't figure them out, and so would jump on a familiar concept like a "baby laptop." I am not convinced that is the case. I think that they don't know how to use a smart-phone, and don't own a smart-phone, because they don't care about surfing or checking their email when they are away from home.
Now which of us is right? Only time will tell. Netbook sales are obviously taking off, and I don't dispute that they are big right now. I can see them replacing smartphones for people who need to do more involved or intensive computer work while they are on the go -- sales guys who give presentations, programmers, whatever. If you're the kind of person who needs a laptop with them, then a smaller more portable laptop is attractive. And I can see them being bought by some John and Jane Publics specifically to take on family vacations and the like.
But I still don't see a future where everybody carries a netbook around with them all day every day. The people who want to stay connected all the time are the ones who know how to use a smartphone, and the people who don't know how to use a smartphone don't know because they don't need to stay connected all the time. So I think 6 to 1 netbook to smartphone sales is optimistic of you.
Now I may end up being wrong, but it isn't that I don't understand your argument and don't know how to think like a consumer. I just disagree with your analysis.
I worry about this kind of thing too, because though I too have a not-very common name, there is another guy with my name who grew up in the same town that I did, at the same time. He was about 8 years younger than me, and it still resulted in confusion more than once when I was living there. For example, people would ask my sister if she were related to {my name}, and she would say yes, not realizing that they were talking about the other guy with my name.
Fortunately, the kid's kept his nose clean as far as I know. But I'll still never forgive him for getting his drawing of a ninja turtle published in the kid's section of the local paper when I was 16. That was a rough day of high school, let me tell you.
But the average folks ain't paying $600 for a phone, I don't care how fancy it is.
You may or may not be right about where netbooks are going, but this isn't a valid argument against the smartphone. For starters, the iPhone only cost that much for its first six months or so of existence. It now costs $199. What do you suppose a device with the same capabilities will cost in a few years? My first Motorola RAZR cost my $500. What can I say, early adopter tax. A year later they were selling them for $99, and a year after that the RAZR was the standard phone given away for with a new wireless plan.
You may be very right that netbooks will take off if THEY start to be given away with a plan, but I'm not sure about selling 6 to 1. Smart phones have really done an excellent job of demonstrating that you don't need a full-fledged computer to accomplish most of what you want to do when you're away from your desk, and while a netbook beats the pants off of a full-sized laptop for portability, it still isn't something I can stick in my pants pocket and carry around all day.
If I am going to a conference or lecture series or something, sure, I'd pick one over a laptop. But as a device to have with me 24/7? No thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
I might have agreed with you when I was just a few years younger, back when my friends all had fewer responsibilities. Once everyone you know is married and has two kids, and it takes a months advanced planning just to get together with somebody for dinner, you will appreciate having a nicely asynchronous way to keep in touch.
I resisted facebook for a long time, but in the end I'm grateful to be back in regular contact with close friends that are far more available online than in meatspace. They aren't people I don't really care about -- they are people I do care about and don't get to spend much quality time with in any other way.
Having it in his will won't make it happen though. Facebook is the legal owner of the data, and putting something in your will is not a magic incantation that dispels inconvenient legal realities.
When my first fiancee died, her wishes were to be buried, unembalmed and without a casket and such, so that her nutrients would be returned to the earth. Nice sentiment, but it's not legal (most places) to bury someone without a sealed vault of some kind. So we had her cremated, and scattered the ashes.
The unfortunate fact is that dying does not automatically mean you get your way.
YOU clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics. While it is true the decoherence hinges entirely on human actions, that statement is too general. It hinges entirely on human actions between 1930 and 1945, resulting in universes which are primarily distinguished by having had different outcomes to World War II.
"1+1 is a somewhat complicated example."
I love it. Any discussion in which this statement can be made is a good discussion in my book. :)
Apologies if it has already been mentioned (I don't want to search through 8 pages of comments to find out) but check out the 1936 novel War with the Newts by Karel Capek. A satirical work exploring what happens after the discovery of another species of sentient earthlings.
In point of fact, recent studies have concluded that chimps have evolved more than humans since the split from the common ancestor. That is, there have been a greater number of distinct evolutionary changes at the genetic level on the chimp line than the human line.
Wait, murder is mandated by law? How many murders do I have to commit?
Air is necessary for the read/write head to operate. The piece that comes into close proximity of the platter is essentially a tiny hovercraft. It's about the size of a pepper flake, and has a microscopic pattern called an "air bearing" carved into the side facing the platter. Designing this air bearing is an exercise in fluid dynamics -- it is the shape of the bearing and how air flows over it that allows the read/write head to skim over the surface of the platter at a distance measured in microns without actually contacting the surface of the platter.
If the read/write head does contact the surface of the platter, that is called a head crash, and is bad.
Nope. Still Alive.
Isn't it quite telling that the pharmaceutical companies refuse to make a vaccine that can protect you from every pathogen that will ever emerge in the future? If they did that, they'd be out of business right?
Isn't it quite telling that the food companies refuse to make a magical pot pie that when you eat it you will live forever and never need to ingest calories again? If they did that they'd be out of business right?
Isn't it quite telling that the toilet paper companies refuse to make a bathroom tissue that will scotch-guard your ass-cheeks so you never have to wipe again? If they did that, they'd be out of business right?
Unfortunately the copyright goes to the creator of the work, not to the work itself. You probably owe damages to your parents for unauthorized use of your identity.
Fair enough, I was assuming that the presence of a human in the burning building was apparant; yelling for help, waving out the window, or whatever.
And you are right that obviously the first law doesn't come into play if the robot is unaware of danger to the human. I recall some of Asimov's stories dealing with that specifically. (Though your example of a robot not knowing humans need air is a bit out there -- what good is an AI if it's built without any basic knowledge of how the world works)?
The situations where saving one human endangers another are also ones he explored. That was always the focus of stories featuring the three laws -- exploring the edge cases in which what the robot would do and why it would do so are not well defined and predictable.
Okay, I know that I'm being extremely pedantic, so don't take it as an insult or anything. I just have to point out that you've incorrectly applied the three laws in a couple of spots here.
Imagine you get ordered to run into a building to rescue a human, knowing that your chance to survive is almost zero and you are compelled to do it, whether you want or not. (emphasis mine).
It would not matter if you were ordered to run into the building, as you would be compelled to do so by the first law. It states that you can neither harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. Same result, but the "being ordered" part would never come into play.
Imagine you're ordered to make a fool out of yourself and you have to do it because the order comes from a human and you have to obey it as long as it doesn't harm you physically. (emphasis mine).
Even if it did harm you physically, you would still have to obey. The second law requires you to obey all orders given to you by humans, except where those orders would conflict with the first law. Your directive to protect yourself from harm is the third law, which only applies so long as it doesn't conflict with the first or second laws. In this case, the second law has precedence.
Again, this doesn't really change your scenario any, but since all of Asimov's short stories on the three laws dealt specifically with figuring out the logically result of the three laws in actual situations, I felt compelled to be picky about it. No offense is intended.
These are all valid reasons to keep a land line around, but for me they are just not enough to justify paying for one. I think we are going through a long transitional period in which the benefits of a land line over a mobile phone are gradually diminishing to the point where if you are going to have a mobile anyway, it no longer makes sense to pay for a land line as well.
I get my internet through the cable company.
My security alarm works via cellular as well. (Even if I did have a land line, the alarm would STILL have a cellular backup, so that one cannot simply cut the phone line before breaking into the house).
The sound quality on my mobile is "good enough."
Someone was trying to sell me phone service the other day and brought up that tired old refrain about how if there is an emergency, a land line works even when the power is out. I've never found that very compelling. Our mobile phones also work even when the power is out, unless all of the following are true:
My battery is dead
My wife's battery is dead
My laptop's battery and my wife's laptop's battery are both dead
The two UPS's powering my desktop, router, cable modem, etc, are both dead
The batteries in my car, my motorcycle, and my wife's car are all dead, and furthermore, those vehicles are all out of gasoline.
If all those conditions are met, then yes, I will be unable to place a call. It's a risk, but not one that I am willing to pay to mitigate.
None of this is meant to criticize your individual choices for your own situation, your post was just a convenient jumping off point for my own take on the matter.
Who knows. I'm not speculating on the nature of the disturbance. I am just pointing out that objects in space can rotate in three dimensions, and if you set something rotating, however slowly, on any axis, it will keep rotating on that axis until some force counteracts that rotation.
Anything at all that can cause the stars ecliptic plane to rotate relative to the orbital plane of the planet could eventually lead to the planet orbiting retrograde to the spin of the star. Note that both planes could be set rotating by an event; as long as they rotate at different rates, however slight, it doesn't change the fact that at some point in time they will be in a retrograde configuration.
Would it would take more energy to add another direction of rotation to a star than to alter the orbit of a planet sufficiently that it becomes retrograde? Maybe, probably, yeah. I don't know. Someone who knows the math can work it out. It's all relative anyway.
All I said was that it wouldn't "rip the star apart."
Flipping the spin of the star is not that incredible and wouldn't require tearing it apart. You don't have to stop it spinning and then start it spinning in the opposite direction. Just tilt the still spinning star 180 degrees on it's axis, so that the "north" pole is now the "south" pole and vice versa.
Seems to me like sometime after the formation of the system, some perturbation could have caused the star to gradually tilt until it was "upside down" in relation to the orbit of the planet.
The post was 3 sentences long. I am not ignoring tone, but suggesting that you perceived one that wasn't there. As we know, that happens frequently with written communications such as forum posts.
Your reaction indicated that you perceived his post as derisive towards those with psychiatric disorders, and you felt the need to scold him for it. I was only trying to point out that I see nothing in his post that comes off to me as defamatory, and that I think you are criticizing him for an attitude he did not express. Which words or phrases in his brief post constituted this "tone" that was so insulting?
All I see is two rhetorical questions which are dismissive of the notion that this man is allergic to wi-fi, followed by the conclusion that because this notion is obviously false, the man must be suffering from mental illness. None of it strikes me as derisive towards the individual in question. Dismissive of his delusional claim, yes; but that claim is worthy of being dismissed.
As this whole discussion between us came about because it is hard to perceive tone in the written word, I would like to add that I don't mean for this to come off as combative, and that I overreacted by using the word pretentious. I just don't like to see a person publicly shamed for his tone when that tone is very likely a creation of the reader's mind.
How does saying that someone "has some mental problems" qualify as name-calling? It sounds to me like a perfectly polite and correct way of expressing that they have fallen prey to "psychological and cognitive shortcomings inherent in everybody."
I mean, if MightyMartian had said he was a fucking whackjob nutcase or something, you would have a point; but he merely stated that they guy appears to have mental problems. That's no different than your own analysis. Granted, his wording was less pretentious than yours, but it was in no way name-calling, nor did it misrepresent the problem.
If you must accuse someone of being insensitive, find an appropriate target. I suggest the editors for posting this article to begin with, as a story highlighting one individual's delusions is not particularly newsworthy.
I'm sure it isn't ready for prime time yet, but you seem to be criticizing a tech demo for being a tech demo.
Of course there are going to be glitches and limitations, and of course there are no games for it yet. It was just a tech demo. An exciting one if you ask me -- I want to know when it will be done so I can get it! You seem to be of the opinion that nobody should hear of its existence until it is production ready and hits store shelves with a dozen games along side it.
Oh, and a dark room is not going to be a problem. Project Natal floods the room in infrared light, which its camera can see in, and you can't.
You are off by half a mile per hour on the speed, and a factor of 100 on the power. Please travel back 30 years and prevent your geek card from ever being issued.
Let me see if I understand you. You had a million dollar idea, invested your time in the research necessary to demonstrate its viability, and then you *GAVE* it away for free. And the people you gave it to are the morons?
Can I have your next million dollar idea?
For redundancy. If the Joules run out, it can still run off the watt-hours, and vice versa.
Deal with consumers? No, I suppose not, in that I am neither a salesperson, nor a marketer, nor a tech-support representative. I do happen to know some consumers, though. I and everybody I know is one, in fact.
I am trying to think like a consumer here. I follow your argument that a lot of the general population does not use most of the features on their phone, and that historically smart phones have been non-intuitive to use. But I think you are missing (or that we just disagree) on two things.
Firstly, that smart-phone interfaces have gotten a LOT less complicated. The iPhone is a poster child of simple, obvious, controls. It's a simple panel of icons, just like that modified Xandros on the EEE. My mother even got a Blackberry Storm recently, and I assure you she is not a techie.
Secondly, these John and Jane Publics that you mention, who prefer basic phones and are going to snap up all the netbooks because they know how a laptop works -- I don't think they are in this market at all. You think that they don't use smart-phones because they are intimidated by them or can't figure them out, and so would jump on a familiar concept like a "baby laptop." I am not convinced that is the case. I think that they don't know how to use a smart-phone, and don't own a smart-phone, because they don't care about surfing or checking their email when they are away from home.
Now which of us is right? Only time will tell. Netbook sales are obviously taking off, and I don't dispute that they are big right now. I can see them replacing smartphones for people who need to do more involved or intensive computer work while they are on the go -- sales guys who give presentations, programmers, whatever. If you're the kind of person who needs a laptop with them, then a smaller more portable laptop is attractive. And I can see them being bought by some John and Jane Publics specifically to take on family vacations and the like.
But I still don't see a future where everybody carries a netbook around with them all day every day. The people who want to stay connected all the time are the ones who know how to use a smartphone, and the people who don't know how to use a smartphone don't know because they don't need to stay connected all the time. So I think 6 to 1 netbook to smartphone sales is optimistic of you.
Now I may end up being wrong, but it isn't that I don't understand your argument and don't know how to think like a consumer. I just disagree with your analysis.
I worry about this kind of thing too, because though I too have a not-very common name, there is another guy with my name who grew up in the same town that I did, at the same time. He was about 8 years younger than me, and it still resulted in confusion more than once when I was living there. For example, people would ask my sister if she were related to {my name}, and she would say yes, not realizing that they were talking about the other guy with my name.
Fortunately, the kid's kept his nose clean as far as I know. But I'll still never forgive him for getting his drawing of a ninja turtle published in the kid's section of the local paper when I was 16. That was a rough day of high school, let me tell you.
But the average folks ain't paying $600 for a phone, I don't care how fancy it is.
You may or may not be right about where netbooks are going, but this isn't a valid argument against the smartphone. For starters, the iPhone only cost that much for its first six months or so of existence. It now costs $199. What do you suppose a device with the same capabilities will cost in a few years? My first Motorola RAZR cost my $500. What can I say, early adopter tax. A year later they were selling them for $99, and a year after that the RAZR was the standard phone given away for with a new wireless plan.
You may be very right that netbooks will take off if THEY start to be given away with a plan, but I'm not sure about selling 6 to 1. Smart phones have really done an excellent job of demonstrating that you don't need a full-fledged computer to accomplish most of what you want to do when you're away from your desk, and while a netbook beats the pants off of a full-sized laptop for portability, it still isn't something I can stick in my pants pocket and carry around all day.
If I am going to a conference or lecture series or something, sure, I'd pick one over a laptop. But as a device to have with me 24/7? No thanks.