If you have an iPhone, get an iPad. If you have an Android phone, now you can get a comparable Android tablet. With the growing number of Android phones out there a solid alternative that allows you to stay in your chosen ecosystem is a good thing. Competition of features is also good. The newest one should always be better than the last one. I expect no different from the iPad3. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 won't woo any iPhone users, but it will sell tablets to Android users who don't already have an iPad.
Good point, maybe that could work well enough if just getting rid of extras such as the Google apps would do it and the core OS would fit, which seems reasonable. While Google said they wouldn't do it, they did say it was kinda possible for someone else to do. The new Davlik JIT compiler would be worth it alone. On my N1 things are a bit zippier, but it is the WIFI hotspot and tethering that takes the cake. I hope T-mobile doesn't change their policy and start charging more for tethering. I got their "VPN data plan" at least 5 years ago, which encouraged tethering at the time and have an unlocked phone, but you never know.
Have you heard definitively that Froyo will be ported to the G1?
No. It is correct, by Google's admission at IO, that Froyo is too big to flash to the ROM on the G1. However, as they mentioned, there could be a custom (non-Google) build that removed pieces of Froyo's functionality in order to get it to fit. Not sure why you would want to do that though. It would be like taking the seats out of a Ferrari though, it would be fast, but not much fun to drive.
Computers are more reliable than the software that runs on them, or the people that use them.
Computers can be used to enable people to do more and more every day.
However, in the corporate world they enable you to do less, just more of it.
It is the "systems" that are created, not to enable people, but to disable choice that are the problem.
Most aggravating calls to customer supports usually end in "Sorry, the system won't let me do that".
The computer itself would let you do anything you can tell it to (within the limits of the medium), they are the rock in the foundation, and for that I love them!
It is the non-hardware portion of the stack that is easier to hate. . .
This may be a bit off topic, but I can not help but think of Robert Moses solving all of our transportation in the 1950's and 60's in NY, by building more highways. The more that were built, the worse the traffic got. Yet, for decades people have been putting up with it.
He also solved the transportation issue by only spending money on transportation by automobile. This has come to haunt us now as the automobile is too expensive, and the other alternatives don't exist in enough capacity. We need to be more careful about developing a single internet and coming to rely on it now because of it's *inexpensive* nature. Dare I say, leave the Internet be and come up with another solution to this data exchange issue, in the end redundancy is not in two internet connections, but two modes of connecting. I would prefer grandma have a faster connection, she has less time to spare. Let all the power users jump on the new technology as they are willing to adapt more easily.
Well, anger never was good during golf, the cool head usually prevails when all is equal. As long as he doesn't look down at his own shirt while looking down at the ball the theory rings true.
One big difference here is that the JavaScript created by the GWT Java->JavaScript translator is optimized. The optimized code is all that is sent to the browser. Imagine some well written, but verbose, Java code being sent to the browser, and then compiled. Sounds like a waste of time/resources to me. Interesting, I would like to see the debugger work too. If there is none, then it really is beneath what GWT already does.
Why don't browsers and email clients simply have a 'Do not Track' option? Each request would send the 'do not track' flag. Better yet, make it part of the HTML protocol.
Whatever the solution is, it should work more like robots.txt that the "do not call list". Tracking.txt could have the sites you want to track you. You should have to opt in, not out.
Of course, get ready to start paying for everything on the internet. No tracking == No profit. Unless of course you are actually making money the old fashion way, by providing a tangible product and you are just using the internet as a modern day Sears catalog. POP... Bye-bye bubble!
they're building a graph of interactions and finding the most linked to nodes
Sounds like you just described the PageRank TM algorithm in general. Remember, the "Page" in PageRank TM is for the founders name, not web pages. It is not the complexity of the math, but of the ability to solve equations on a large scale quickly over the distributed systems that makes the Google methods so powerful in solving these "simple" math problems.
I apologize for the word "funky", as not all features were working. However it was designed for small children, in a good way, to be more intuitive without any prior knowledge. No, there are no lions bears or tigers. That is a western version of "designed for children". but there are small keys and complexity is ignored in favor of simple and intuitive. It does not do much to teach people how to use a computer as many of features that are in all modern operating systems are not there, such as windows and files. It was not designed as a stepping stone to an IT job. It is designed to be a tool for learning, and not surfing the internet and sending email or playing multimedia. It has extreme durability, feature that allow the screen to be read in sunlight, and a very low power consumption. I think XP would be wrong for the third world application, and for the "rich" western user, a modern cellphone may be a better investment, though maybe not as "cool", much as the Prius became a status symbol, I see the OLPC having the same potential. "Look, I have an OLPC, my other one is in Africa". While that would be smug, it would better the cause as a whole, much as the Prius.
A few months ago I got to sit down at a sidewalk cafe in NYC's East Village, with an OLPC. You wouldn't believe the attention it got. No, it wasn't from PC people talking about how it would, or wouldn't, solve the world's problems, but how darn cute it was (With those silly looking ears). Every girl who saw it said "Can I surf the internet and check my email on it? What, only $400? I can afford that.". We told everyone, buy one when they go on sale to the public, in limited release, and you will support a child in a developing country. They responded with it's so small (The PC, not child), hardly knowing what it was really designed for. Of course, talking later in private to the individual whose OLPC it was, we were skeptical whether we gave good advice on them buying one, at least for their own use. The OS interface was pretty funky, and really designed for small children. However, with XP, I would recommend it to anyone who needs and internet PC. So, if you look at it running XP for use in the US, maybe it is a blessing in disguise. Add to that, the OLPC GUI interface is designed for a child, and would probably be more intuitive and therefore more successful in third word countries for small children.
In a truly secure area, no one should be allowed to use a private cell phone. For somewhere to be secure you should have all means of communication in/out secured and monitored, whether digital, analog, two tin cans and a string, etc... Cell phones are as much a threat as anything. Remember, most security threats come from the inside. Now a company can claim they are securing their wireless network, and apologize for interfering with private cellphone usage, when all along this may be what they want to stop the most.
More snow=more cold in Maryland? We are only talking about a threshold of 32 degrees. Sounds pretty warm to me, even for Maryland in the middle of the winter. Or, was it -32 all winter, which could equally produce snow, and bring on paranoia of the next ice age. Anyway, how is this point relative to temperature?
If I were to try to make a similar point with the cost of gas I would say I have paid less for gas since the prices went up. I must be getting better mileage. Oh wait, I take public transportation more now. Sorry, thought gross cost of gas annually = mileage of car. This is no more true than more snow in Maryland=no global warming. Unless of course, the Maryland glaciers have been growing in the recent decade, that may help make your point.
So, why do you have the right to record that which you are told is not yours to record? I agree with your skeptisism with laws, but that is not the point of this article. I also have to disagree that it is not a companies job to control the media they let you view for a fee. It is not there content either, and they could, in the near future, be just as liable as YouTube seems to be today. The inherent right you feel you have just does not exist. The allusion to mix tapes is also an invalid point, as just because it has been for many years, doesn't make it legal, just tolerated.
I will admit that ANYTHING done will be broken cracked soon, or have it's flaws. We all have locks on our front doors that are useless to the real criminal, but do keep the average Joe from walking into my home.
As far as I am concerned simply identifying a broadcast should pose no more threat to the consumer than registering a gun does for a hunter.
So, as I said before, we should all keep an eye on the changing definition of "fair use" as you alluded to(which I agree with all your points), than claim there should be no restrictions. It is their content not yours.
If you were a musician, and had a number one radio hit, but sold no singles because everyone recorded it off "free" radio, would you still argue for the right to free music? I think this practice would simply force royalties to rise, and kill any "free" music.
As with YouTube or Mix Tapes, they are tolerated until the bottom line is it doesn't make monetary sense.
I don't photocopy my friends books to read them, I borrow the book. If you really want to share your music with friends, lend him your copy, or play it for him (which should always be fair use in the context of your home, or personal space).
A person who gives drugs away is as much a dealer as one that sells them. So, the "friends" and "sharing" defense is quite flimsy, and is being abused by consumers in the same way you fear corporate entities would abuse laws (which they will). So, the more self regulation that exist, the better, as I do not want more laws on the books than there already are.
If you are not a pirate if you copy and share someone else's material, then what are you? If you really want to share music unlimitedly, that is called being an artist and musician without a record contract. go for it.
First off, I am a privacy freak, and I see nothing wrong with this. If you copy and share, you are a pirate. Watermarking is a fair weapon to use in copyright infringement. They are honest about it, claim to allow fair use, and have not taken the "tool" away. What "fair use" becomes in time is the real issue, and as I see it the battle to fight.
Also,in comment to the first post, last I knew, the set top box belonged to the cable/satellite company. It is no different than a rental car company putting a governor on your rental car to make sure you abide by the law. With your argument it would be like complaining about the license plate to identify the car you rent. Any step towards not crippling the hardware is a step towards a fair policy. Computers don't copy music, users do. Once a proper watermark is agreed upon, then more automated controls can be put in place to identify and take actions as necessary if you have copyrighted material to protect. The real trick is to make the technology available to everyone, not just the big companies companies involved with most media.
I agree with you though, you should cancel your cable and spend more time on/. or buy a book.
Good business is correct. We also have to remember what type of company Google is. They are a marketing company first and foremost. Everything else they do is to support that effort. The Search product does not make them money, it's the paid sponsors that do. They are currently poised to deliver much more than just search ads with their massive client base. Their recent moves of buying bandwidth, renting massive office space in NYC and elsewhere, purchasing Youtube and pushing their Content network (The other half of AdSense as the Advertisers know it) all point to their inevitable expansion into the video realm. With the merging of television and the internet happening quickly one only wonders how soon Google would most likely be the reason for an internet bandwidth shortage. They would like their media in all forms permeating the web and attracting consumers, while earning them money, and all while doing no evil.
It has been a long time since "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger W. Dijkstra was released, marking the begining of the end for procedural based spaghetti code(or at least the acceptance of the inevitability of it's existence). Programs got too large and complex, and a new paradigm was needed. Now, with the web, computer solutions are no longer a single entity, and can span across systems and even languages.I think there needs to be a similiar paper to stress standards and best practices, and to caution the use of bleeding edge technologies. Perhaps something with a title like "Why you should learn less and do more". Although many people complain about Java's complexity(The architecture, not the language), it is a very good model of standards. It is this model of standards, not the language itself, that make it so revolutionary in this era of web computing. It is a sad day when marketing wins, again.
I Think Java developers are more in need of the buzz java once had. A CEO looks at AJAX as better, because of it's recent exposure, and buzz word power. Java was no different in it's infancy, with it's broad promises. Java justy wants to be cool agaim...
And this is why you should design with absolute column sizes. It may seem less flexible, but depending on the context this point may be irrelevant. On the plus side,it is much quicker to render, and based on the Gecko bug, apparentlly better also.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of search is to look in more than one place, otherwise it would be called Google retrieval.
If you have an iPhone, get an iPad. If you have an Android phone, now you can get a comparable Android tablet. With the growing number of Android phones out there a solid alternative that allows you to stay in your chosen ecosystem is a good thing. Competition of features is also good. The newest one should always be better than the last one. I expect no different from the iPad3. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 won't woo any iPhone users, but it will sell tablets to Android users who don't already have an iPad.
Good point, maybe that could work well enough if just getting rid of extras such as the Google apps would do it and the core OS would fit, which seems reasonable. While Google said they wouldn't do it, they did say it was kinda possible for someone else to do. The new Davlik JIT compiler would be worth it alone. On my N1 things are a bit zippier, but it is the WIFI hotspot and tethering that takes the cake. I hope T-mobile doesn't change their policy and start charging more for tethering. I got their "VPN data plan" at least 5 years ago, which encouraged tethering at the time and have an unlocked phone, but you never know.
Have you heard definitively that Froyo will be ported to the G1?
No. It is correct, by Google's admission at IO, that Froyo is too big to flash to the ROM on the G1. However, as they mentioned, there could be a custom (non-Google) build that removed pieces of Froyo's functionality in order to get it to fit. Not sure why you would want to do that though. It would be like taking the seats out of a Ferrari though, it would be fast, but not much fun to drive.
Computers are more reliable than the software that runs on them, or the people that use them.
Computers can be used to enable people to do more and more every day.
However, in the corporate world they enable you to do less, just more of it.
It is the "systems" that are created, not to enable people, but to disable choice that are the problem.
Most aggravating calls to customer supports usually end in "Sorry, the system won't let me do that".
The computer itself would let you do anything you can tell it to (within the limits of the medium), they are the rock in the foundation, and for that I love them!
It is the non-hardware portion of the stack that is easier to hate. . .
This may be a bit off topic, but I can not help but think of Robert Moses solving all of our transportation in the 1950's and 60's in NY, by building more highways. The more that were built, the worse the traffic got. Yet, for decades people have been putting up with it. He also solved the transportation issue by only spending money on transportation by automobile. This has come to haunt us now as the automobile is too expensive, and the other alternatives don't exist in enough capacity. We need to be more careful about developing a single internet and coming to rely on it now because of it's *inexpensive* nature. Dare I say, leave the Internet be and come up with another solution to this data exchange issue, in the end redundancy is not in two internet connections, but two modes of connecting. I would prefer grandma have a faster connection, she has less time to spare. Let all the power users jump on the new technology as they are willing to adapt more easily.
Oh, not the real British Rocketman, Elton John. Very misleading title.
Well, anger never was good during golf, the cool head usually prevails when all is equal. As long as he doesn't look down at his own shirt while looking down at the ball the theory rings true.
One big difference here is that the JavaScript created by the GWT Java->JavaScript translator is optimized. The optimized code is all that is sent to the browser. Imagine some well written, but verbose, Java code being sent to the browser, and then compiled. Sounds like a waste of time/resources to me. Interesting, I would like to see the debugger work too. If there is none, then it really is beneath what GWT already does.
Why don't browsers and email clients simply have a 'Do not Track' option? Each request would send the 'do not track' flag. Better yet, make it part of the HTML protocol. Whatever the solution is, it should work more like robots.txt that the "do not call list". Tracking.txt could have the sites you want to track you. You should have to opt in, not out. Of course, get ready to start paying for everything on the internet. No tracking == No profit. Unless of course you are actually making money the old fashion way, by providing a tangible product and you are just using the internet as a modern day Sears catalog. POP ... Bye-bye bubble!
Sounds like you just described the PageRank TM algorithm in general. Remember, the "Page" in PageRank TM is for the founders name, not web pages. It is not the complexity of the math, but of the ability to solve equations on a large scale quickly over the distributed systems that makes the Google methods so powerful in solving these "simple" math problems.
When Chuck Norris sues, he brings the verdict, not the charges.
In related news, the book of the year was /.
I apologize for the word "funky", as not all features were working. However it was designed for small children, in a good way, to be more intuitive without any prior knowledge. No, there are no lions bears or tigers. That is a western version of "designed for children". but there are small keys and complexity is ignored in favor of simple and intuitive. It does not do much to teach people how to use a computer as many of features that are in all modern operating systems are not there, such as windows and files. It was not designed as a stepping stone to an IT job. It is designed to be a tool for learning, and not surfing the internet and sending email or playing multimedia. It has extreme durability, feature that allow the screen to be read in sunlight, and a very low power consumption. I think XP would be wrong for the third world application, and for the "rich" western user, a modern cellphone may be a better investment, though maybe not as "cool", much as the Prius became a status symbol, I see the OLPC having the same potential. "Look, I have an OLPC, my other one is in Africa". While that would be smug, it would better the cause as a whole, much as the Prius.
A few months ago I got to sit down at a sidewalk cafe in NYC's East Village, with an OLPC. You wouldn't believe the attention it got. No, it wasn't from PC people talking about how it would, or wouldn't, solve the world's problems, but how darn cute it was (With those silly looking ears). Every girl who saw it said "Can I surf the internet and check my email on it? What, only $400? I can afford that.". We told everyone, buy one when they go on sale to the public, in limited release, and you will support a child in a developing country. They responded with it's so small (The PC, not child), hardly knowing what it was really designed for. Of course, talking later in private to the individual whose OLPC it was, we were skeptical whether we gave good advice on them buying one, at least for their own use. The OS interface was pretty funky, and really designed for small children. However, with XP, I would recommend it to anyone who needs and internet PC. So, if you look at it running XP for use in the US, maybe it is a blessing in disguise. Add to that, the OLPC GUI interface is designed for a child, and would probably be more intuitive and therefore more successful in third word countries for small children.
The most secure MS product yet. Doesn't even let you download it to install it, now that's progress and efficiency.
In a truly secure area, no one should be allowed to use a private cell phone. For somewhere to be secure you should have all means of communication in/out secured and monitored, whether digital, analog, two tin cans and a string, etc... Cell phones are as much a threat as anything. Remember, most security threats come from the inside. Now a company can claim they are securing their wireless network, and apologize for interfering with private cellphone usage, when all along this may be what they want to stop the most.
More snow=more cold in Maryland? We are only talking about a threshold of 32 degrees. Sounds pretty warm to me, even for Maryland in the middle of the winter. Or, was it -32 all winter, which could equally produce snow, and bring on paranoia of the next ice age. Anyway, how is this point relative to temperature?
If I were to try to make a similar point with the cost of gas I would say I have paid less for gas since the prices went up. I must be getting better mileage. Oh wait, I take public transportation more now. Sorry, thought gross cost of gas annually = mileage of car. This is no more true than more snow in Maryland=no global warming. Unless of course, the Maryland glaciers have been growing in the recent decade, that may help make your point.
So, why do you have the right to record that which you are told is not yours to record? I agree with your skeptisism with laws, but that is not the point of this article. I also have to disagree that it is not a companies job to control the media they let you view for a fee. It is not there content either, and they could, in the near future, be just as liable as YouTube seems to be today. The inherent right you feel you have just does not exist. The allusion to mix tapes is also an invalid point, as just because it has been for many years, doesn't make it legal, just tolerated.
I will admit that ANYTHING done will be broken cracked soon, or have it's flaws. We all have locks on our front doors that are useless to the real criminal, but do keep the average Joe from walking into my home.
As far as I am concerned simply identifying a broadcast should pose no more threat to the consumer than registering a gun does for a hunter. So, as I said before, we should all keep an eye on the changing definition of "fair use" as you alluded to(which I agree with all your points), than claim there should be no restrictions. It is their content not yours.
If you were a musician, and had a number one radio hit, but sold no singles because everyone recorded it off "free" radio, would you still argue for the right to free music? I think this practice would simply force royalties to rise, and kill any "free" music.
As with YouTube or Mix Tapes, they are tolerated until the bottom line is it doesn't make monetary sense.
I don't photocopy my friends books to read them, I borrow the book. If you really want to share your music with friends, lend him your copy, or play it for him (which should always be fair use in the context of your home, or personal space).
A person who gives drugs away is as much a dealer as one that sells them. So, the "friends" and "sharing" defense is quite flimsy, and is being abused by consumers in the same way you fear corporate entities would abuse laws (which they will). So, the more self regulation that exist, the better, as I do not want more laws on the books than there already are. If you are not a pirate if you copy and share someone else's material, then what are you? If you really want to share music unlimitedly, that is called being an artist and musician without a record contract. go for it.
First off, I am a privacy freak, and I see nothing wrong with this. If you copy and share, you are a pirate. Watermarking is a fair weapon to use in copyright infringement. They are honest about it, claim to allow fair use, and have not taken the "tool" away. What "fair use" becomes in time is the real issue, and as I see it the battle to fight. Also,in comment to the first post, last I knew, the set top box belonged to the cable/satellite company. It is no different than a rental car company putting a governor on your rental car to make sure you abide by the law. With your argument it would be like complaining about the license plate to identify the car you rent. Any step towards not crippling the hardware is a step towards a fair policy. Computers don't copy music, users do. Once a proper watermark is agreed upon, then more automated controls can be put in place to identify and take actions as necessary if you have copyrighted material to protect. The real trick is to make the technology available to everyone, not just the big companies companies involved with most media. I agree with you though, you should cancel your cable and spend more time on /. or buy a book.
Good business is correct. We also have to remember what type of company Google is. They are a marketing company first and foremost. Everything else they do is to support that effort. The Search product does not make them money, it's the paid sponsors that do. They are currently poised to deliver much more than just search ads with their massive client base. Their recent moves of buying bandwidth, renting massive office space in NYC and elsewhere, purchasing Youtube and pushing their Content network (The other half of AdSense as the Advertisers know it) all point to their inevitable expansion into the video realm. With the merging of television and the internet happening quickly one only wonders how soon Google would most likely be the reason for an internet bandwidth shortage. They would like their media in all forms permeating the web and attracting consumers, while earning them money, and all while doing no evil.
It has been a long time since "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger W. Dijkstra was released, marking the begining of the end for procedural based spaghetti code(or at least the acceptance of the inevitability of it's existence). Programs got too large and complex, and a new paradigm was needed. Now, with the web, computer solutions are no longer a single entity, and can span across systems and even languages.I think there needs to be a similiar paper to stress standards and best practices, and to caution the use of bleeding edge technologies. Perhaps something with a title like "Why you should learn less and do more". Although many people complain about Java's complexity(The architecture, not the language), it is a very good model of standards. It is this model of standards, not the language itself, that make it so revolutionary in this era of web computing. It is a sad day when marketing wins, again.
I Think Java developers are more in need of the buzz java once had. A CEO looks at AJAX as better, because of it's recent exposure, and buzz word power. Java was no different in it's infancy, with it's broad promises. Java justy wants to be cool agaim ...
How do you pull the plug on wireless?
And this is why you should design with absolute column sizes. It may seem less flexible, but depending on the context this point may be irrelevant. On the plus side,it is much quicker to render, and based on the Gecko bug, apparentlly better also.