Gateway CX2618 Tablet PC. 14" widescreen, more than 6-hours battery with regular use (and that's in my experience, not on the box), Pentium M 1.6ghz, 1gb RAM, DVD burner, 128mb video, and it's a Tablet, for crying out loud. Runs almost silent. Charges fast. As low as $1399 new, probably cheaper used.
I'm not saying you should buy it, just saying high-performance high-battery laptops are not rare anymore, although admittedly the CX2618 is on the heavy side for a Tablet.
Likewise a ship with a silent propeller still makes vibration noise through the hull. Every footstep, drop tray, shout, etc.
If you have ever toured a modern nuclear submarine (you should, it's fascinating) you'll see that the hull is insulated (rubber, I think) everywhere it contacts the deck, furniture, support struts, etc. Anything that a vibration could be transmitted from inside to the outside through has to be insulated. That's not going to make the ship silent, but it helps. If you could augment that with maglev insulation (obviously lots of failsafes are in order), it could go a long ways toward silencing submarines.
This is NOT a tablet PC, and it's nothing but confusing to consumers to label it as such. The staple of the TPC industry is mobility. Does a coffee table strike anyone as exceedingly mobile? Because I have my doubts.
I have trouble with my new Gateway tablet -- at 14 inches widescreen, it's not mobile enough. My old 10.5 Toshiba was more of a genuine tablet, and it was still a convertible.
Tablet PCs have a lot to offer the market, but because of brand confusion there's very little adoption. Whenever I say "Tablet PC," people assume I'm talking about a PDA, or a refrigerator with a computer built in, or some wacky in-between. Everyone's interested in my tablet, everyone wants one after they've used it, and if people just knew what they were ahead of time sales would soar.
There absolutely IS a reason. Did you entirely miss the point? What if something is only copyrighted in one or a few countries, and is public domain in others? There are plenty of scenarios in which something could be free in one set of circumstances but not in others.
Google has cooperated with the Chinese government to do its best to provide service to a government that does not necessarily abide by Western mores. Considering that "some service" is probably better than "Chinese government firewalls Google," I fail to see the problem. Yes, I'm against that level of censorship. Then again, I think I'd be somewhat less alarmed if I wasn't raised in a nation that professed to be legally opposed to it -- things are different in other places. Google is doing its best to cross cultural boundaries without stepping on too many toes. Way to be a good American and make sure you step on as many as possible.
Because Google Video is designed as a sales venue, not simply a community site like YouTube. It's entirely feasible that copyright/tradmark/whatever restrictions might permit something to be sold in one locale but not in others. The fact that the same property is available in free content is hardly conspiratorial.
The ability to restrict a video by country is available in the advanced options for the original uploader of the video. Whoever put it up there applied a restriction -- no censorship by Google or any government is taking place here.
He was not aboard the plane. He was crossing the tarmac. He was amused and sought to take a picture. Yes, as a passenger he is entitled to, or at least ought to be able to find, the certificate of airworthiness. As a guy wandering on the tarmac, the crew is not obligated to go out of its way to please his every whim.
You seem to be missing my point, which is "you should have demanded to see the airworthiness certificate" is an invalid response to "some minimum-wage bag tosser is worked up about the HSA's posted 'watch for terrorists' warnings." The OP was wandering the tarmac -- yes, he was a passenger, but he had not boarded the plane and was taking pictures. It's pretty easy for your average Joe Laborer to see that and say "oh, tourist," or slightly more ignorantly "oh, terrorist."
Finally, what's with the ad hominem? I misstated a single legalistic aspect of a regulation, and apparently I'm a horrible pilot? Neverminding that missing one question would be a long ways shy of failing the written. I could just as easily point out one or two minute technicalities that you've missed, does that make you a bad pilot? No. Although I can't imagine how you must be on the radio.
Being obligated to prominently display a certificate of airworthiness to passengers and crew is not the same as being obligated to chaperone any and all paparazzi on the tarmac who look interested to the cabin for a photo shoot.
Yes, "to the FAA" was an oversimplification, but the point of the regulation is to provide readily available proof of legality to fly, not toopen the cabin to tourists.
I for one would (metaphorically) kill for an Apple tablet. I've been a (very happy) Windows tablet user for three years now and would welcome the competition.
Although, with what Vista and Office 12 are bringing to the tablets, and with whats already there, Apple will really be playing catchup.
Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like a few broad, flat, even remotely massive projectiles travelling a few tens of thousands of km/s ought to be able to knock a comet suitably off course, given enough advance notice. Carry up something big and heavy and cheap in the space shuttle and send it off. Or, heck, if circumstances are dire enough, throw chunks of space shuttle or ISS at it.
If we start planning now, it ought to be relatively easy to get some kind of fairly flexible asteroid deterrent up there. The trick is making it something that isn't also conspicuously similar to an orbital weapon. Dreaming up countermeasures is no good if the other world powers won't let it sit in orbit for fear we might turn it against them.
I'm no physicist, but couldn't an anti-comet bullet be turned into, say, an anti-city bullet by throwing it around a single AU orbit and back into a terrestrial target? Would there be any way to track such an incoming object without advance notice?
Now I've lead myself down a rabbit-trail, but couldn't a superpower with a space program conceivable launch a purported comet impactor and surreptitiously swing it around against a city? Would there be any way to prove after the fact what had happened?
In an age of nuclear weapons, it seems silly to drop rocks from orbit, but still. One wonders.
Capitol Hill Blue has a reputation, at least among a lot of people I know, of printing stories with outrageous claims, out-of-character quotes, and startling revelations from "a number of white house aides" when no other source corroborates the claim. Are there really that mainy leaky aides in the White House eager to talk to a wacky leftist website and a wacky leftist website alone?
If these claims had any veracity, I'd expect some kind of corroboration from an outside source. Just because CHB has only retracted two stories doesn't mean the rest have been true.
Slashdot Mirror
Gateway CX2618 Tablet PC. 14" widescreen, more than 6-hours battery with regular use (and that's in my experience, not on the box), Pentium M 1.6ghz, 1gb RAM, DVD burner, 128mb video, and it's a Tablet, for crying out loud. Runs almost silent. Charges fast. As low as $1399 new, probably cheaper used.
I'm not saying you should buy it, just saying high-performance high-battery laptops are not rare anymore, although admittedly the CX2618 is on the heavy side for a Tablet.
Awesome! Zero is a step in the right direction!
indoors.
Likewise a ship with a silent propeller still makes vibration noise through the hull. Every footstep, drop tray, shout, etc.
If you have ever toured a modern nuclear submarine (you should, it's fascinating) you'll see that the hull is insulated (rubber, I think) everywhere it contacts the deck, furniture, support struts, etc. Anything that a vibration could be transmitted from inside to the outside through has to be insulated. That's not going to make the ship silent, but it helps. If you could augment that with maglev insulation (obviously lots of failsafes are in order), it could go a long ways toward silencing submarines.
This is NOT a tablet PC, and it's nothing but confusing to consumers to label it as such. The staple of the TPC industry is mobility. Does a coffee table strike anyone as exceedingly mobile? Because I have my doubts.
/petpeeve.
I have trouble with my new Gateway tablet -- at 14 inches widescreen, it's not mobile enough. My old 10.5 Toshiba was more of a genuine tablet, and it was still a convertible.
Tablet PCs have a lot to offer the market, but because of brand confusion there's very little adoption. Whenever I say "Tablet PC," people assume I'm talking about a PDA, or a refrigerator with a computer built in, or some wacky in-between. Everyone's interested in my tablet, everyone wants one after they've used it, and if people just knew what they were ahead of time sales would soar.
There absolutely IS a reason. Did you entirely miss the point? What if something is only copyrighted in one or a few countries, and is public domain in others? There are plenty of scenarios in which something could be free in one set of circumstances but not in others. Google has cooperated with the Chinese government to do its best to provide service to a government that does not necessarily abide by Western mores. Considering that "some service" is probably better than "Chinese government firewalls Google," I fail to see the problem. Yes, I'm against that level of censorship. Then again, I think I'd be somewhat less alarmed if I wasn't raised in a nation that professed to be legally opposed to it -- things are different in other places. Google is doing its best to cross cultural boundaries without stepping on too many toes. Way to be a good American and make sure you step on as many as possible.
Because Google Video is designed as a sales venue, not simply a community site like YouTube. It's entirely feasible that copyright/tradmark/whatever restrictions might permit something to be sold in one locale but not in others. The fact that the same property is available in free content is hardly conspiratorial.
Simple. It was not censored.
The ability to restrict a video by country is available in the advanced options for the original uploader of the video. Whoever put it up there applied a restriction -- no censorship by Google or any government is taking place here.
He was not aboard the plane. He was crossing the tarmac. He was amused and sought to take a picture. Yes, as a passenger he is entitled to, or at least ought to be able to find, the certificate of airworthiness. As a guy wandering on the tarmac, the crew is not obligated to go out of its way to please his every whim.
You seem to be missing my point, which is "you should have demanded to see the airworthiness certificate" is an invalid response to "some minimum-wage bag tosser is worked up about the HSA's posted 'watch for terrorists' warnings." The OP was wandering the tarmac -- yes, he was a passenger, but he had not boarded the plane and was taking pictures. It's pretty easy for your average Joe Laborer to see that and say "oh, tourist," or slightly more ignorantly "oh, terrorist."
Finally, what's with the ad hominem? I misstated a single legalistic aspect of a regulation, and apparently I'm a horrible pilot? Neverminding that missing one question would be a long ways shy of failing the written. I could just as easily point out one or two minute technicalities that you've missed, does that make you a bad pilot? No. Although I can't imagine how you must be on the radio.
Being obligated to prominently display a certificate of airworthiness to passengers and crew is not the same as being obligated to chaperone any and all paparazzi on the tarmac who look interested to the cabin for a photo shoot.
Yes, "to the FAA" was an oversimplification, but the point of the regulation is to provide readily available proof of legality to fly, not toopen the cabin to tourists.
And I did fine on my written, thanks.
...by the FAA, not buy the first guy with a camera to ask.
The MacBook Pro says it has a Radeon X1600, which is by no means a bad card.
I for one would (metaphorically) kill for an Apple tablet. I've been a (very happy) Windows tablet user for three years now and would welcome the competition.
Although, with what Vista and Office 12 are bringing to the tablets, and with whats already there, Apple will really be playing catchup.
... how about a new line of emotion-sensing computers that turn ridiculous colors when your blood pressure changes. We could call them "iMacs."
Since when is "stable" a phonetic spelling of "staple"? There no "b" sound in "staple."
Here's a couple of links explaining that in fact you're an idiot.
Actually I don't have any links. I just wanted to say that. Anyway, the use of "literally" invalidates the use of idioms afterward. Sorry.
If I could get a $200 DVD player with a screen twice the size of a $600 TV, and save on style in the meantime, I don't think I'd buy the TV too.
And also they aren't Mouses nor Mice, but "Mouse Input Devices."
Seriously, what pedantery.
When I saw "Windows are obselete," I was expecting a crack about airline passengers looking out their Linuxes.
For that matter, what is anyone doing in the American midwest?
Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like a few broad, flat, even remotely massive projectiles travelling a few tens of thousands of km/s ought to be able to knock a comet suitably off course, given enough advance notice. Carry up something big and heavy and cheap in the space shuttle and send it off. Or, heck, if circumstances are dire enough, throw chunks of space shuttle or ISS at it.
If we start planning now, it ought to be relatively easy to get some kind of fairly flexible asteroid deterrent up there. The trick is making it something that isn't also conspicuously similar to an orbital weapon. Dreaming up countermeasures is no good if the other world powers won't let it sit in orbit for fear we might turn it against them.
I'm no physicist, but couldn't an anti-comet bullet be turned into, say, an anti-city bullet by throwing it around a single AU orbit and back into a terrestrial target? Would there be any way to track such an incoming object without advance notice?
Now I've lead myself down a rabbit-trail, but couldn't a superpower with a space program conceivable launch a purported comet impactor and surreptitiously swing it around against a city? Would there be any way to prove after the fact what had happened?
In an age of nuclear weapons, it seems silly to drop rocks from orbit, but still. One wonders.
Or you could stop thinking engines and start thinking bombs/projectiles.
You'll pardon my ignorance, but isn't a space probe a wee bit bigger than 2 nanometers?
I think good (intentions) but dumb is a pretty accurate/common descriptor.
Capitol Hill Blue has a reputation, at least among a lot of people I know, of printing stories with outrageous claims, out-of-character quotes, and startling revelations from "a number of white house aides" when no other source corroborates the claim. Are there really that mainy leaky aides in the White House eager to talk to a wacky leftist website and a wacky leftist website alone?
If these claims had any veracity, I'd expect some kind of corroboration from an outside source. Just because CHB has only retracted two stories doesn't mean the rest have been true.