While the caps are lower than I'd like, when the penalty for going over is throttling instead of overage charges it at least feels a lot less like a pure cash grab.
Right, I wasn't trying to argue that all tablets are equal. It's just statements like "If the iPad 2 had the problems and deficiencies the Xoom and PlayBook have, these same reviewers would (rightly) trash it" that irk me. Just flatly stating it like that totally ignores the pros that bring the scores back up. Essentially it feels like he's saying that the other tablets don't do the things Apple does well as well as Apple does (woah), so they deserve to be trashed. Apple prides itself on "look and feel", so look and feel is what gets reviewed heavily. Google pushes different features, so trashing it because the "look and feel" isn't Apple quality isn't fair. Or, another example, BlackBerry seems to care about integration with their phones, and the consensus seems to be that they put a lot of effort into that and did a reasonably good job. "Trashing" them for lacking an email client isn't fair because it ignores the features they actually focused on.
That's not to say that we should ignore the negatives, just that we shouldn't also ignore the positives.
Right, comparisons are fine. They compete in the same space against each other, so it's helpful to compare them in certain areas. I don't take issue with comparisons and I don't take issue with knocking the review scores down because of the various problems/missing features. What I do take issue with is saying things like "they're bad tablets" because they don't compare favorably to a specific product on a specific feature. I take issue with "They should be judged by the same standards". Apple doesn't get to set what standard tablets are judged by.
For example, you could argue that Apple's browser is more stable, but Google's browser has more features and a nicer interface. Why does Apple necessarily win that comparison? If you are only concerned about stability, sure, but that's just one consideration. Google's is plenty stable for me and the interface makes it better overall IMO. Or, similarly, the Playbook lacks an email client, but it has the Bridge software. I've never used an email client on my tablet or phone, I just use gmail, so that's not necessarily a big deal. Now, I'm just one person, but that's exactly the point. Just because the occasional crash or missing piece of software completely ruins your experience doesn't mean that it ruins it for everyone. These other tablets shouldn't be "trashed" just because they have different pros and cons, and if someone can't recognize that there are pros and cons to every product then they're just blinded by fanboyism.
Fair enough, I get the point. All I'm saying is that, while you can ding them for missing features or bugs or whatever, you can't just ignore the additional features that do exist. You can't just say something like "they're bad tablets" and point to a lack of an email client (for example). Some people don't care so much about an email client. For some people, the bridge is more than enough. You can't point out that the sd card doesn't work on launch while ignoring the fact that the iPad will never have an sd card and complain about unfair relative review scores. There are positives and negatives to all products, and you can't just "trash" one product because its positives and negatives don't match up with your favorite product. It has its own set of ups and downs to be weighed.
But honestly, it still has 32gb of space built in, so the sd card expandability is (or, more accurately, will be) a nice bonus, not a requirement. They're certainly taking their sweet time with it, though.
Apple re-architecting their home launcher to support widgets would be a pretty huge change, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Also, I've had no OS-level instability with my Xoom. Browser, market, and launcher crashes, yes, but I've yet to have an issue requiring a reboot. And finally, the question is not one of difficulty anyway. I'm merely pointing out that these products aim to do different things.
Ok, sorry, those absolutes should be expanded a bit. The Xoom is almost certain to have its issues fixed. There's no reason to expect Google will be abandoning it any time soon and they have a pretty good track record in general and with Android specifically. As for the widgets, well, never is a long time and anything can happen, but it seems highly unlikely. And anyway, widgets are just one example I used to make my overall point: different products, different features.
As an aside, despite my Android love, I hate flash. I'm happy to have the option on my devices, but I'm also happy that a large, influential company is doing everything they can to kill it. Flash can go die in a fire for all I care.
I don't know about this. He's not wrong, per se, but he's missing a key point: these devices do things an iPad can not and will not ever do. And (probably) vice versa. So yeah, my Xoom market crashes on occasion and I have to reopen it, but I also have a bunch of widgets all over my home screen. And while my instability will eventually be fixed, the iPad will never have widgets. Point being, if you assume the iPad and the Xoom (or Playbook) are the same except that one has some problems then his point is valid, but if you see them as different products with their own ups and downs then he doesn't make so much sense. For every downside to the non-iPad there's an upside to counter it. In that context, it doesn't make sense to "trash" these other tablets. They're just better in some ways and worse in others, and the value you place on each of these features/bugs will direct the scores you hand out.
Note: if you don't see the upsides of the non-iPads of the world as upsides then this can't apply, but then these products were never meant for you anyway. If you don't like widgets and customizability, you probably weren't in the market for a Xoom to begin with, and the same goes for the Playbook and its Blackberry Bridge.
I've been playing the GOG version of PS:T on this for a few days and it's working surprisingly well. Only thing to note is that, with the GOG version at least, you have to set all the CD paths in the cfg file to './data'.
Yes, but it's not about quality. Everyone knows that 90% of any given app store is crap whether it's paid or free, games or other. The point is that there exist a good number of games for less than $5 that will entertain for several hours. They might not be deep or graphically impressive or anything else, but that doesn't matter to most people so long as they're fun. If I can get 10 hours of fun out of a $2 game, how do you justify $60 for 6-8 hours of fun? Even with deeper gameplay and super high production values the bottom line is the amount of entertainment you get out of it, and $60 games don't often justify their price in that department.
I think you missed the key phrase: "as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license". The GPL requires those things as a condition of distribution. The BSD license allows those things, but does not require them, and so would be allowed. I mean, seems to me that it has to be interpreted that way cause otherwise (iii) pretty much bans any free (as in beer) software.
The difference between text and speech is not a big deal. I imagine that speech processing is outside the scope of what they're trying to accomplish. This computer is working on the problem of understanding and interpreting relatively natural language. Speech-to-text is an entirely different and wholly unrelated problem. You could strap any speech-to-text engine onto the front-end of this thing and feed the text output into it. Speech is not what this project is concerned with, language is.
I don't understand why no one seems to be able to understand this. And I don't just mean the non-techie's among us. It's very simple: if you put info on facebook, facebook has access to that info. I don't even consider this an "invasion of privacy." I mean, you gave it to them. It's not like they're following you around filling in your info or anything. They just ask, and you give them as much or as little as you want. The people who don't follow this stuff seem to assume that they can put up their info and still have it be private, then get upset when it's not. Yeah, good luck with that. Meanwhile, people paying attention are often (over)reacting by trying to equate using facebook at all to wearing a sign with your social security number on it. The reality is just that facebook has access to what you give them. No more, no less. You don't want them to know your name? Fine, don't give it to them. Your phone number? Your interests? Your relationships? Your address? All the same. It's really very simple, and if everyone would calm the hell down it might even make perfect sense.
I always used to wonder this myself, but then I met some people who communicate largely through texts. And really, it's pretty nice. You don't force the person to drop what they're doing to talk to you, they can respond when they get a chance. That's a huge advantage imo. I can send people texts without worrying about interrupting something, while still being sure they'll see my message. You and they also don't have to worry about people listening in or background noise affecting your communication. Or bothering anyone else, for that matter. No one likes the one dude yelling into his phone on a train (for example).
Really, calls are conversations and sometimes I just don't want to have a conversation, but would still like to communicate. Texts are excellent for that, if nothing else.
I can't figure out why anyone would think this isn't accidental, though. As the GP mentioned, code reuse accidents happen often enough that it's not even a stretch to believe that explanation. It's very easy to imagine an engineer using the code without fully auditing it first. Yeah, that shouldn't happen and Google should tighten up their reviews and such, but it's still just an accident. Further, what use would Google get out of random samplings of packets on random unsecured wireless networks? I can't imagine any of that would be particularly useful even if you assume that they're hellbent on world domination, and if you're going to accuse them of intentionally collecting this data, there should at least be a motive.
This is exactly right IMO. Obesity is a real problem. Parents are ruining kids lives (or at least making them far more difficult) by feeding them fast food and other junk. We've known how obesity works for awhile, but it not only keeps happening, it keeps getting worse! I'm all for personal/parental responsibility and keeping the government out of it, but to this point a very large portion of our population has proven that they can't handle their responsibility and it's affecting society as a whole negatively. What do we do at this point? Do we legislate for the good of society, or do we just say "fuck it" and let people destroy their children's lives and a large portion of our society with them? For me at least, it's not so easy a call to make when viewed in that light.
What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages.
I want fast clean loads of information. Not bloated pages full of shiny dodads designed to divert my attention from the information I am looking for.
Then don't go to sites that don't give you what you want. Adding support for hardware acceleration is not going to suddenly make every site have flashy graphics, it's only going to allow sites to add flashy graphics. If you don't like it when they do, don't visit those sites. If enough people agree with you and the sites lose traffic, then they'll stop adding graphics. If not enough people agree then, well, sorry, but majority opinion will win out.
We live in a world where generalizing, rationalizing, and stereotypes are the norm. You are going to be lumped into a group whether you use a mac or not, like it or not. If it bothers you to the point that you "really hate" (as in actual full fledge hatred), perhaps you shouldn't put yourself in a position to be lumped. No one singled you out either.
Fair enough, I guess. I don't really care that much. I mean, it is just some random people on the internet. It's just a stupid stereotype in my opinion, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits it. I wanted to point that out because I see people state it as if the only reason to like a mac is because you're a smug elitist, but I suppose it was a waste (arguments on the internet, etc). You guys continue to think what you want and I'll just continue to be happy with my computer. We can all move on with our lives now:)
Mac users are bought by those that want to distinguish themselves from the rest in terms of money or social class, more in the lines of "I can afford an Mac and you are a poor blue collar bastard"
I really can't stand this. This line of thinking comes up at least once per Apple article anywhere on the internet, and it's always taken as truth for some reason. I own a mac that has been used in public all of once, in an airport. I own it because I prefer it to any other laptop and was ok with spending the extra cash. It has nothing to do with showing off or demonstrating my superiority. I know plenty of other people who own macs and would agree. I'm sure some people do buy them with that intention, and I wouldn't mind people saying so except that every time they do it's always referring to "mac users" instead of "some mac users". I really hate being lumped in with a group of smug assholes just because of my laptop choice.
You wouldn't, but if the *AA propaganda is to be believed, selling your work is fast becoming nonviable, so it's wise to start looking at other options. This is just one of many (including many that haven't yet been considered).
Look at it this way: making albums and selling them is becoming less and less profitable. People like buying single tracks or not paying at all. No amount of legislation or lawsuits are going to change that. Faced with these facts, it's probably a good idea to find another way to make money. Donations are an option. Selling scarcities and using art as a promotional tool is an option (see concerts, merchandise, etc.). There are plenty of others. What is not an option is to keep trying to do the same thing in the face of its failure, at least not for long.
You've missed the point entirely. If you're an artist and people are willing to pay you for your art, great. Make art, sell it, make money. No problem. If people aren't willing to pay, though, then the proper response is not to whine about how no one will pay. It's to do something which will make you money. If that means getting a "real job" and making art on the side, then that's how it is. You might also get away with asking for donations or selling something related to your art that people will pay for. There are all kinds of options, of which a job is only one. The point is that bitching and moaning because no one will hand you money for your art like you wanted them to will get you nowhere.
Well, you could argue that those involved in espionage against the US are enemies and, by lobbying for them, she was giving aid to enemies. I'm not convinced that argument would hold, but you could make it.
That said, regardless of whether this classifies as treason or not, it does seem very much illegal on the part of Rep Harman and possibly Alberto Gonzales, not to mention the other agent involved.
Slashdot Mirror
While the caps are lower than I'd like, when the penalty for going over is throttling instead of overage charges it at least feels a lot less like a pure cash grab.
Right, I wasn't trying to argue that all tablets are equal. It's just statements like "If the iPad 2 had the problems and deficiencies the Xoom and PlayBook have, these same reviewers would (rightly) trash it" that irk me. Just flatly stating it like that totally ignores the pros that bring the scores back up. Essentially it feels like he's saying that the other tablets don't do the things Apple does well as well as Apple does (woah), so they deserve to be trashed. Apple prides itself on "look and feel", so look and feel is what gets reviewed heavily. Google pushes different features, so trashing it because the "look and feel" isn't Apple quality isn't fair. Or, another example, BlackBerry seems to care about integration with their phones, and the consensus seems to be that they put a lot of effort into that and did a reasonably good job. "Trashing" them for lacking an email client isn't fair because it ignores the features they actually focused on.
That's not to say that we should ignore the negatives, just that we shouldn't also ignore the positives.
Right, comparisons are fine. They compete in the same space against each other, so it's helpful to compare them in certain areas. I don't take issue with comparisons and I don't take issue with knocking the review scores down because of the various problems/missing features. What I do take issue with is saying things like "they're bad tablets" because they don't compare favorably to a specific product on a specific feature. I take issue with "They should be judged by the same standards". Apple doesn't get to set what standard tablets are judged by.
For example, you could argue that Apple's browser is more stable, but Google's browser has more features and a nicer interface. Why does Apple necessarily win that comparison? If you are only concerned about stability, sure, but that's just one consideration. Google's is plenty stable for me and the interface makes it better overall IMO. Or, similarly, the Playbook lacks an email client, but it has the Bridge software. I've never used an email client on my tablet or phone, I just use gmail, so that's not necessarily a big deal. Now, I'm just one person, but that's exactly the point. Just because the occasional crash or missing piece of software completely ruins your experience doesn't mean that it ruins it for everyone. These other tablets shouldn't be "trashed" just because they have different pros and cons, and if someone can't recognize that there are pros and cons to every product then they're just blinded by fanboyism.
Fair enough, I get the point. All I'm saying is that, while you can ding them for missing features or bugs or whatever, you can't just ignore the additional features that do exist. You can't just say something like "they're bad tablets" and point to a lack of an email client (for example). Some people don't care so much about an email client. For some people, the bridge is more than enough. You can't point out that the sd card doesn't work on launch while ignoring the fact that the iPad will never have an sd card and complain about unfair relative review scores. There are positives and negatives to all products, and you can't just "trash" one product because its positives and negatives don't match up with your favorite product. It has its own set of ups and downs to be weighed.
Precisely!
But honestly, it still has 32gb of space built in, so the sd card expandability is (or, more accurately, will be) a nice bonus, not a requirement. They're certainly taking their sweet time with it, though.
Apple re-architecting their home launcher to support widgets would be a pretty huge change, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Also, I've had no OS-level instability with my Xoom. Browser, market, and launcher crashes, yes, but I've yet to have an issue requiring a reboot. And finally, the question is not one of difficulty anyway. I'm merely pointing out that these products aim to do different things.
Ok, sorry, those absolutes should be expanded a bit. The Xoom is almost certain to have its issues fixed. There's no reason to expect Google will be abandoning it any time soon and they have a pretty good track record in general and with Android specifically. As for the widgets, well, never is a long time and anything can happen, but it seems highly unlikely. And anyway, widgets are just one example I used to make my overall point: different products, different features.
As an aside, despite my Android love, I hate flash. I'm happy to have the option on my devices, but I'm also happy that a large, influential company is doing everything they can to kill it. Flash can go die in a fire for all I care.
I don't know about this. He's not wrong, per se, but he's missing a key point: these devices do things an iPad can not and will not ever do. And (probably) vice versa. So yeah, my Xoom market crashes on occasion and I have to reopen it, but I also have a bunch of widgets all over my home screen. And while my instability will eventually be fixed, the iPad will never have widgets. Point being, if you assume the iPad and the Xoom (or Playbook) are the same except that one has some problems then his point is valid, but if you see them as different products with their own ups and downs then he doesn't make so much sense. For every downside to the non-iPad there's an upside to counter it. In that context, it doesn't make sense to "trash" these other tablets. They're just better in some ways and worse in others, and the value you place on each of these features/bugs will direct the scores you hand out.
Note: if you don't see the upsides of the non-iPads of the world as upsides then this can't apply, but then these products were never meant for you anyway. If you don't like widgets and customizability, you probably weren't in the market for a Xoom to begin with, and the same goes for the Playbook and its Blackberry Bridge.
https://market.android.com/details?id=net.sourceforge.gemrb&feature=search_result
I've been playing the GOG version of PS:T on this for a few days and it's working surprisingly well. Only thing to note is that, with the GOG version at least, you have to set all the CD paths in the cfg file to './data'.
Yes, but it's not about quality. Everyone knows that 90% of any given app store is crap whether it's paid or free, games or other. The point is that there exist a good number of games for less than $5 that will entertain for several hours. They might not be deep or graphically impressive or anything else, but that doesn't matter to most people so long as they're fun. If I can get 10 hours of fun out of a $2 game, how do you justify $60 for 6-8 hours of fun? Even with deeper gameplay and super high production values the bottom line is the amount of entertainment you get out of it, and $60 games don't often justify their price in that department.
I think you missed the key phrase: "as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license". The GPL requires those things as a condition of distribution. The BSD license allows those things, but does not require them, and so would be allowed. I mean, seems to me that it has to be interpreted that way cause otherwise (iii) pretty much bans any free (as in beer) software.
The difference between text and speech is not a big deal. I imagine that speech processing is outside the scope of what they're trying to accomplish. This computer is working on the problem of understanding and interpreting relatively natural language. Speech-to-text is an entirely different and wholly unrelated problem. You could strap any speech-to-text engine onto the front-end of this thing and feed the text output into it. Speech is not what this project is concerned with, language is.
I don't understand why no one seems to be able to understand this. And I don't just mean the non-techie's among us. It's very simple: if you put info on facebook, facebook has access to that info. I don't even consider this an "invasion of privacy." I mean, you gave it to them. It's not like they're following you around filling in your info or anything. They just ask, and you give them as much or as little as you want. The people who don't follow this stuff seem to assume that they can put up their info and still have it be private, then get upset when it's not. Yeah, good luck with that. Meanwhile, people paying attention are often (over)reacting by trying to equate using facebook at all to wearing a sign with your social security number on it. The reality is just that facebook has access to what you give them. No more, no less. You don't want them to know your name? Fine, don't give it to them. Your phone number? Your interests? Your relationships? Your address? All the same. It's really very simple, and if everyone would calm the hell down it might even make perfect sense.
As long as they have their Sunday Night Football, we won't have anything to worry about.
If this is an implied threat to Monday Night Football I'm gonna be PISSED!
I always used to wonder this myself, but then I met some people who communicate largely through texts. And really, it's pretty nice. You don't force the person to drop what they're doing to talk to you, they can respond when they get a chance. That's a huge advantage imo. I can send people texts without worrying about interrupting something, while still being sure they'll see my message. You and they also don't have to worry about people listening in or background noise affecting your communication. Or bothering anyone else, for that matter. No one likes the one dude yelling into his phone on a train (for example).
Really, calls are conversations and sometimes I just don't want to have a conversation, but would still like to communicate. Texts are excellent for that, if nothing else.
I can't figure out why anyone would think this isn't accidental, though. As the GP mentioned, code reuse accidents happen often enough that it's not even a stretch to believe that explanation. It's very easy to imagine an engineer using the code without fully auditing it first. Yeah, that shouldn't happen and Google should tighten up their reviews and such, but it's still just an accident. Further, what use would Google get out of random samplings of packets on random unsecured wireless networks? I can't imagine any of that would be particularly useful even if you assume that they're hellbent on world domination, and if you're going to accuse them of intentionally collecting this data, there should at least be a motive.
Also, how has antimatter responded to this bias?
We demand equal representation!
This is exactly right IMO. Obesity is a real problem. Parents are ruining kids lives (or at least making them far more difficult) by feeding them fast food and other junk. We've known how obesity works for awhile, but it not only keeps happening, it keeps getting worse! I'm all for personal/parental responsibility and keeping the government out of it, but to this point a very large portion of our population has proven that they can't handle their responsibility and it's affecting society as a whole negatively. What do we do at this point? Do we legislate for the good of society, or do we just say "fuck it" and let people destroy their children's lives and a large portion of our society with them? For me at least, it's not so easy a call to make when viewed in that light.
To put it simply, never is a long time. Saying "never" in regards to technology is always a stupid thing to do.
What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages.
I want fast clean loads of information. Not bloated pages full of shiny dodads designed to divert my attention from the information I am looking for.
Then don't go to sites that don't give you what you want. Adding support for hardware acceleration is not going to suddenly make every site have flashy graphics, it's only going to allow sites to add flashy graphics. If you don't like it when they do, don't visit those sites. If enough people agree with you and the sites lose traffic, then they'll stop adding graphics. If not enough people agree then, well, sorry, but majority opinion will win out.
We live in a world where generalizing, rationalizing, and stereotypes are the norm. You are going to be lumped into a group whether you use a mac or not, like it or not. If it bothers you to the point that you "really hate" (as in actual full fledge hatred), perhaps you shouldn't put yourself in a position to be lumped. No one singled you out either.
Fair enough, I guess. I don't really care that much. I mean, it is just some random people on the internet. It's just a stupid stereotype in my opinion, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits it. I wanted to point that out because I see people state it as if the only reason to like a mac is because you're a smug elitist, but I suppose it was a waste (arguments on the internet, etc). You guys continue to think what you want and I'll just continue to be happy with my computer. We can all move on with our lives now :)
Mac users are bought by those that want to distinguish themselves from the rest in terms of money or social class, more in the lines of "I can afford an Mac and you are a poor blue collar bastard"
I really can't stand this. This line of thinking comes up at least once per Apple article anywhere on the internet, and it's always taken as truth for some reason. I own a mac that has been used in public all of once, in an airport. I own it because I prefer it to any other laptop and was ok with spending the extra cash. It has nothing to do with showing off or demonstrating my superiority. I know plenty of other people who own macs and would agree. I'm sure some people do buy them with that intention, and I wouldn't mind people saying so except that every time they do it's always referring to "mac users" instead of "some mac users". I really hate being lumped in with a group of smug assholes just because of my laptop choice.
You wouldn't, but if the *AA propaganda is to be believed, selling your work is fast becoming nonviable, so it's wise to start looking at other options. This is just one of many (including many that haven't yet been considered).
Look at it this way: making albums and selling them is becoming less and less profitable. People like buying single tracks or not paying at all. No amount of legislation or lawsuits are going to change that. Faced with these facts, it's probably a good idea to find another way to make money. Donations are an option. Selling scarcities and using art as a promotional tool is an option (see concerts, merchandise, etc.). There are plenty of others. What is not an option is to keep trying to do the same thing in the face of its failure, at least not for long.
You've missed the point entirely. If you're an artist and people are willing to pay you for your art, great. Make art, sell it, make money. No problem. If people aren't willing to pay, though, then the proper response is not to whine about how no one will pay. It's to do something which will make you money. If that means getting a "real job" and making art on the side, then that's how it is. You might also get away with asking for donations or selling something related to your art that people will pay for. There are all kinds of options, of which a job is only one. The point is that bitching and moaning because no one will hand you money for your art like you wanted them to will get you nowhere.
Well, you could argue that those involved in espionage against the US are enemies and, by lobbying for them, she was giving aid to enemies. I'm not convinced that argument would hold, but you could make it.
That said, regardless of whether this classifies as treason or not, it does seem very much illegal on the part of Rep Harman and possibly Alberto Gonzales, not to mention the other agent involved.