Lenny: Pfft, forget it, Homer. While it has been established that soda contains High Fructose Corn Syrup, it has not yet been proven conclusively that it actually leads to obesity.
Homer: So one of those Corn Lobby creeps got to you too, huh?
Lenny: Aw, you've got it all wrong, Homer. It's not like that.
[a man in an corn cob costume creeps, then runs, away]
A 3D movie is intended to be an immersive experience. Not background entertainment. If you want to use it that way, just turn the 3D off.
I, for one, am sick of people treating movies this way. If you're not going to commit to the screening, then fuck the hell off, and don't disturb the people who are watching the movie.
Well, then turn the 3D off if you don't have enough glasses. But I'm not sure why you'd be particularly concerned about random passers-by who didn't care enough to watch the movie from the start.
The fundamental problem is that if you are watching in 3D mode, the screen is a blurry mess to anyone without glasses. It can be uncomfortable to look at. This means if you are sitting watching a movie and someone else walks in the room, it is a problem for them.
Why is this even an issue? Either you're watching the movie or you're not. Why would you worry about the ability of someone who is not watching the movie to watch the movie? If they want to watch it, they'll put on the glasses.
Erm, so you're saying that actually they're not doing anything wrong, because this is a legitimate service they're offering - i.e. charging $150 to tell people they need a clear view of the TV to use their glasses to... watch the TV.
The $150 isn't just for the "sync glasses" service, it's primarily for delivery and installation of the TV.
In a democracy everyone gets the same vote, in a meritocracy the power is wielded by those who do the best work.
Only in a very narrow sense. It tends to reward programmers, and programmers don't always make good decisions when it comes to issues not related to programming - of which there are many in software development.
Of course the strong rule the weak. Why is that a bad thing (at least, in the programming sense)? There are many, many programmers who should have little to no voice in what patches should be applied, simply because they are weak programmers!
But being a good programmer doesn't necessarily mean you are a good project leader, a good designer, or can even make good decisions about software development. In fact, it is often quite the opposite, because the programmer often can't see the forest for the trees.
The issue this article is discussing actually has nothing to do with programming, it's about interface design.
I apologize for not conforming to the conventions of marketing-speak.
Marketing speak? It's fucking logic. I think you are the one conforming to marketing speak, by using the term "netbook" in the first place. I've never liked the term, because it is a marketing hack.
Why don't you just say what you want using logical, technical terms, rather than mangled and meaningless statements like "netbook in the form of a tablet"?
I had assumed that "netbook in the form of a tablet" was referring to capability and performance, and so forth. The post made plenty of sense that way.
But that's a super-retarded way to refer to a type of computer. It means there can't ever be a powerful netbook. The term "netbook" refers to the form factor, not the speed of the processor or price, or anything else. The problem is that people have conflated the two. None of it even makes any sense, because tablets do have a similar level of power to netbooks.
Back in the day, notebooks (or laptops) were underpowered things, but over time, they grew to have similar power to desktops. The name didn't change when they stopped being underpowered.
They're not providing a useful service if the same function can be performed more efficiently online.
Where is the proof that the function can be performed more efficiently online? Also, if there is no existing online service, then they are still performing a useful function. After all, somebody still needs to do the work if the online service is not established.
RTFA.
I read the fucking article, and there was no analysis of efficiency of machines versus people. There was no analysis of what jobs are being cut. It was basically a press release.
The article does mention eliminating face-to-face contact with public servants, but doesn't reference any studies about whether this would be more efficient or not.
The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.
This is entirely backwards. Firstly, Apple sold tracks without DRM before the Amazon music store even opened. Secondly, the only reason the Amazon store was opened was because Apple wanted to remove DRM, and the labels wanted a bludgeon to use against Apple on pricing. That Amazon was able to sell DRM-free tracks in the first place was because of the music industry's reaction to Apple's (downward) influence on pricing.
If they decide you don't deserve the book (the 1984 fiasco), they can take it away without due process.
I wasn't aware that there were any due process involved in Amazon selling electronic books, as Amazon is neither the government, or a court of law. Why do so many people on slashdot expect private companies to take on the role of government?
The irony is that with some deep discounting and some coupons, my TabletPC cost less than the higher-end iPad will cost, *and* it can easily run 1080p from both MKV/AVC and Flash with ease.
It's not really ironic that with deep discounts in addition to coupons you can get this cheaply, but it's hardly relevant to the average customer, who gets neither.
laptops also have folding screen/keyboard. netbooks were named because they were smaller (so closer to books),
No. Netbooks were named after notebooks. Notebooks were named, because they resemble books, with their folding hinge.
Tablet can fall in the same category because they are also small, relatively underpowered, and not sufficient as a main PC.
But that's not why netbooks were named this way. They were named this way because they are "small notebooks." If it's a tablet, it's not a netbook, even if it fulfills the same role. A tablet is not "book-like" in its form factor, so why would you call it a derivative of "book"?
They're only "specious" if you don't understand them. The point is that there are lots of ways in which we can put people to work through useless jobs.
I understood perfectly. It's still specious.
An oil spill is a typical example for a bad event that, on paper, looks economically beneficial. And
Except that an oil spill doesn't look beneficial on paper. Also, public servants working in an office is not equivalent to an oil spill (an economic and environmental disaster) - they are actually providing useful labor.
And employing people in the government in order to do jobs that can be better done by machine is another such example.
Can providing advice to people be done better by machine than in person? I don't see any clear evidence of this. In certain areas, face-to-face advice or counseling is much more efficient than machines.
In a free market and with technological progress, jobs become obsolete and it makes no economic sense to continue employing people in those jobs
That is obviously true for many cases, but not always. The problem is, you don't specify what "those jobs" are, and you actually liken "those jobs" to a disastrous accident.
We all lose if groups like this union succeed in forcing the public to continue employing people in those jobs.
"Those jobs" might actually be better performed by humans. But you provide no analysis of what these imaginary jobs are, and why they might be better provided by machines.
It's the new Duke Nukem Forever in terms of absurd hype over an unreleased product
Do you even understand what Duke Nukem Forever is/was/isn't? The parable of DNF is about products that a company announces, but never releases. In other words, vaporware.
Apple announced the iPad on the 27th of January, 2010. The company made no mention of any "tablet" product prior to this date. The iPad will be released to customers on the 3rd of April, 2010. The device actually exists, and will be sold.
So, how is this remotely similar to DNF, which was announced by the company in April 1997, and never released to the public as of March 2010?
But netbook market, IMO, is not going to curl up and die either. A netbook is a fully functioning portable computer.
I'm not so sure about that. Netbooks are so slow and annoying that I would consider them "partially functional" portable computers. A fully functional computer is fluid and empowering, not frustrating.
But really, when a company puts out a netbook in the form of a tablet, prices it like a netbook
But if it's in the form of a tablet, then how is it a netbook any longer? It seems to me that the *book designation (see: Powerbook, Notebook) derives from devices that have a folding screen/keyboard form factor. If it is a tablet that doesn't fold, then it's not a netbook anymore, is it?
Also, what does "pricing it like a netbook" mean? There are netbooks out there that cost more than tablets.
Slashdot Mirror
Lenny: Pfft, forget it, Homer. While it has been established that soda contains High Fructose Corn Syrup, it has not yet been proven conclusively that it actually leads to obesity.
Homer: So one of those Corn Lobby creeps got to you too, huh?
Lenny: Aw, you've got it all wrong, Homer. It's not like that.
[a man in an corn cob costume creeps, then runs, away]
Homer: You'd better run, corn!
A 3D movie is intended to be an immersive experience. Not background entertainment. If you want to use it that way, just turn the 3D off.
I, for one, am sick of people treating movies this way. If you're not going to commit to the screening, then fuck the hell off, and don't disturb the people who are watching the movie.
Well, then turn the 3D off if you don't have enough glasses. But I'm not sure why you'd be particularly concerned about random passers-by who didn't care enough to watch the movie from the start.
The fundamental problem is that if you are watching in 3D mode, the screen is a blurry mess to anyone without glasses. It can be uncomfortable to look at. This means if you are sitting watching a movie and someone else walks in the room, it is a problem for them.
Why is this even an issue? Either you're watching the movie or you're not. Why would you worry about the ability of someone who is not watching the movie to watch the movie? If they want to watch it, they'll put on the glasses.
Erm, so you're saying that actually they're not doing anything wrong, because this is a legitimate service they're offering - i.e. charging $150 to tell people they need a clear view of the TV to use their glasses to... watch the TV.
The $150 isn't just for the "sync glasses" service, it's primarily for delivery and installation of the TV.
it generated untold millions, if not billions, in economic activity -- cleanup, lawyers, judges, court personnel, newspaper column-inches, etc.
Yes. All of it negative.
Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.
Shuttleworth must be pissed that this Shuttlewood impostor stole his money and his project.
That said, since most mice sold nowadays have a scroll-wheel, perhaps it's time to rethink the need for scrollbars in the first place.
Scrollbars aren't just for scrolling - they also give visual feedback on the relative position and length of a page.
In a democracy everyone gets the same vote, in a meritocracy the power is wielded by those who do the best work.
Only in a very narrow sense. It tends to reward programmers, and programmers don't always make good decisions when it comes to issues not related to programming - of which there are many in software development.
Of course the strong rule the weak. Why is that a bad thing (at least, in the programming sense)? There are many, many programmers who should have little to no voice in what patches should be applied, simply because they are weak programmers!
But being a good programmer doesn't necessarily mean you are a good project leader, a good designer, or can even make good decisions about software development. In fact, it is often quite the opposite, because the programmer often can't see the forest for the trees.
The issue this article is discussing actually has nothing to do with programming, it's about interface design.
Since ASCII stands for "American" Standard Code for Information Interchange
You've got it all wrong. It stands for "American Society of Cat Illustration Innovation," informally known as the LOL Society.
I apologize for not conforming to the conventions of marketing-speak.
Marketing speak? It's fucking logic. I think you are the one conforming to marketing speak, by using the term "netbook" in the first place. I've never liked the term, because it is a marketing hack.
Why don't you just say what you want using logical, technical terms, rather than mangled and meaningless statements like "netbook in the form of a tablet"?
I had assumed that "netbook in the form of a tablet" was referring to capability and performance, and so forth. The post made plenty of sense that way.
But that's a super-retarded way to refer to a type of computer. It means there can't ever be a powerful netbook. The term "netbook" refers to the form factor, not the speed of the processor or price, or anything else. The problem is that people have conflated the two. None of it even makes any sense, because tablets do have a similar level of power to netbooks.
Back in the day, notebooks (or laptops) were underpowered things, but over time, they grew to have similar power to desktops. The name didn't change when they stopped being underpowered.
On paper, an oil spill is a net economic benefit.
How so? Where are your figures on that?
They're not providing a useful service if the same function can be performed more efficiently online.
Where is the proof that the function can be performed more efficiently online? Also, if there is no existing online service, then they are still performing a useful function. After all, somebody still needs to do the work if the online service is not established.
RTFA.
I read the fucking article, and there was no analysis of efficiency of machines versus people. There was no analysis of what jobs are being cut. It was basically a press release.
The article does mention eliminating face-to-face contact with public servants, but doesn't reference any studies about whether this would be more efficient or not.
The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.
This is entirely backwards. Firstly, Apple sold tracks without DRM before the Amazon music store even opened. Secondly, the only reason the Amazon store was opened was because Apple wanted to remove DRM, and the labels wanted a bludgeon to use against Apple on pricing. That Amazon was able to sell DRM-free tracks in the first place was because of the music industry's reaction to Apple's (downward) influence on pricing.
If they decide you don't deserve the book (the 1984 fiasco), they can take it away without due process.
I wasn't aware that there were any due process involved in Amazon selling electronic books, as Amazon is neither the government, or a court of law. Why do so many people on slashdot expect private companies to take on the role of government?
So, how do they get the "deep discounts" alongside the coupons?
The irony is that with some deep discounting and some coupons, my TabletPC cost less than the higher-end iPad will cost, *and* it can easily run 1080p from both MKV/AVC and Flash with ease.
It's not really ironic that with deep discounts in addition to coupons you can get this cheaply, but it's hardly relevant to the average customer, who gets neither.
That's why I was excited for the Crunchpad until was stillbirthed.
You actually expected the Crunchpad to be released at all, let alone at the intended pricing? That's hilarious.
laptops also have folding screen/keyboard. netbooks were named because they were smaller (so closer to books),
No. Netbooks were named after notebooks. Notebooks were named, because they resemble books, with their folding hinge.
Tablet can fall in the same category because they are also small, relatively underpowered, and not sufficient as a main PC.
But that's not why netbooks were named this way. They were named this way because they are "small notebooks." If it's a tablet, it's not a netbook, even if it fulfills the same role. A tablet is not "book-like" in its form factor, so why would you call it a derivative of "book"?
They're only "specious" if you don't understand them. The point is that there are lots of ways in which we can put people to work through useless jobs.
I understood perfectly. It's still specious.
An oil spill is a typical example for a bad event that, on paper, looks economically beneficial. And
Except that an oil spill doesn't look beneficial on paper. Also, public servants working in an office is not equivalent to an oil spill (an economic and environmental disaster) - they are actually providing useful labor.
And employing people in the government in order to do jobs that can be better done by machine is another such example.
Can providing advice to people be done better by machine than in person? I don't see any clear evidence of this. In certain areas, face-to-face advice or counseling is much more efficient than machines.
In a free market and with technological progress, jobs become obsolete and it makes no economic sense to continue employing people in those jobs
That is obviously true for many cases, but not always. The problem is, you don't specify what "those jobs" are, and you actually liken "those jobs" to a disastrous accident.
We all lose if groups like this union succeed in forcing the public to continue employing people in those jobs.
"Those jobs" might actually be better performed by humans. But you provide no analysis of what these imaginary jobs are, and why they might be better provided by machines.
It's the new Duke Nukem Forever in terms of absurd hype over an unreleased product
Do you even understand what Duke Nukem Forever is/was/isn't? The parable of DNF is about products that a company announces, but never releases. In other words, vaporware.
Apple announced the iPad on the 27th of January, 2010. The company made no mention of any "tablet" product prior to this date. The iPad will be released to customers on the 3rd of April, 2010. The device actually exists, and will be sold.
So, how is this remotely similar to DNF, which was announced by the company in April 1997, and never released to the public as of March 2010?
But netbook market, IMO, is not going to curl up and die either. A netbook is a fully functioning portable computer.
I'm not so sure about that. Netbooks are so slow and annoying that I would consider them "partially functional" portable computers. A fully functional computer is fluid and empowering, not frustrating.
But really, when a company puts out a netbook in the form of a tablet, prices it like a netbook
But if it's in the form of a tablet, then how is it a netbook any longer? It seems to me that the *book designation (see: Powerbook, Notebook) derives from devices that have a folding screen/keyboard form factor. If it is a tablet that doesn't fold, then it's not a netbook anymore, is it?
Also, what does "pricing it like a netbook" mean? There are netbooks out there that cost more than tablets.
What ever happened to buying old cars and restoring them or going on bike rides or outdoor activites?
It's a shame that people have become so stupid as to purchase old cars or bicycles, just to add meaning to their lives.