Say what you will, but most Chinese will disagree with you.
By no means am I suggesting it's all roses in China. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that China engages in anything on the level the Soviets did. China did plenty of that in the 50s and 60s and if they were still doing it they wouldn't be enjoying this economic boom.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the US does. But in general limits on social freedoms is very consistent with Chinese and asian culture.
There have been politicians in Hong Kong fighting increased Chinese control over the territory and several have resigned in protest. It makes sense since Hong Kong was exposed to the West so extensively for so long. That said, I'm curious to know if the average citizen even cares. Taiwan, which surveys have found to have among the most open-minded people in Asia, share many of these same beliefs. Certainly, exposure to Western culture is slowly eroding some of these long-held ideals.
I do find it ridiculous that Sergey Brin would somehow be touched by this cause considering that the situation in China is nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR. The Chinese government today is communist in name only. It makes me wonder if Google isn't making all this up to avoid discussion of the real reasons for their leaving China.
This thing would have been far more appealing to me if it ran a customized version of OSX, in essence making it a more portable alternative to a laptop. Instead we get a glorified iPod touch chained, as are those devices, to the app store. While a tablet PC is very appealing to me I can get a netbook, which offers more functionality, for less money.
And I'm convinced neither the iPod nor this thing supports Flash for the simple reason that it would undermine the app store. As it stands this thing is pretty disappointing. I was looking forward to a proper tablet PC. Way better than a laptop or phone he says when for me it's got the worst of both. It's too big to carry around like an iPhone and doesn't have nearly the functionality of a laptop, at least not without being nickel and dimed for that functionality.
This is very frustrating. Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space. But unfortunately we're constantly hindered myopic, self-centered politicians. Unfortunately these kinds of programs require long-term commitments and do nothing to garner votes.
At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon. Despite all the problems I have with the Chinese government I have to give credit where it's do. They generally seem to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. On the other hand, the US is saddled with a government interested in pushing agendas and pandering to special interests. Even when they get involved with something that could be beneficial it's mired down by garbage and the end result ends up not amounting to much of anything. But the problem doesn't just lie with the government. It lies with the citizens and their increasingly self-centered attitudes.
This sort of thing makes me regret having moved back to the states.
One thing that we can be sure of is that Apple is going to tout this tablet like they've invented this type device. The people at Apple are smart in that they aren't early adopters of new technologies. Others do it first and run into the issues anyone will face with technology in it's infancy. The segments of the market generally starts petering out as those guys move onto devices and that's when Apple jumps in.
It helps immensely that developing both hardware and software Apple has the huge advantage of good integration. With every other hardware maker they have to go with whatever is available at the time. The software developers, mainly Microsoft and Google have to partner with a hardware company. That almost always consists of an existing product being customized to their needs. Unfortunately this always results in a compromised product. There's nothing like being able to do everything in-house with teams working back and forth.
I have a Sony tablet PC, which I got second-hand. It's the U70 if I'm not mistaken. It came out back in 04 or so, when PC makers were eager to push the technology. It runs Windows XP and performs reasonably well actually. Unfortunately, these things were mainly hindered by the OS. Instead of developing a customized OS to enhance usability they were basically making them full-fledged PCs but more compact. This generally made them a pain to operate. I suppose it was just a sign of the times, because although Sony offered various on-screen input methods the keyboard was generally not given much on-screen real estate. They were still expecting users to interact with the device using a stylus. The touchscreen itself was good but certainly doesn't compare with what is possible with the technology today. The upside was that I could connect a monitor and keyboard to the thing and use it like a regular PC.
The device was a novelty, as a tablet today is for most people. Mine sits around collecting dust most of the time. However, for a couple of weeks I used it when I was traveling and it was great. That's where the compact size is a real asset. Being able to pull that thing out and start browsing the web is excellent. And the good thing is that because it's a PC, basically, I get a proper browsing experience and can do anything I might need to do at home or in the office. It's not a compromised experience like Smartphones provide. However, the lack of a physical keyboard is a problem if you expect to do a lot of typing with the device. I'm sure touchscreen technology has improved to the point where typing on-screen is a bit better than it used to be, but it probably still won't be great. Some of the newer Sony tablets use integrated physical keyboards, but I'm not sure if those are any good.
The fact is, if you've got an iPhone, which most people interested in this tablet likely do, there's little need for this device. If this thing is running a version of the iPhone's OS then there's even less use for it. In my opinion a tablet should be a more portable alternative to a laptop, not a big brother to a mobile phone. Otherwise I expect these things to collect a lot of dust. I don't use my tablet PC for much of anything nowadays; I've installed automotive diagnostics software on it and even that doesn't get much use.
What this guy says is true; it's also obvious. There are two reasons why we encounter unintuitive icons. The first is an overzealous designer who thinks he is going to be creative by not conforming to conventions; this is where I find Linux GUIs tend to fail miserably. It seems whoever designs their interfaces tend to be going for different as opposed to intuitive. The second is a more pervasive problem: trying to convey an abstract concept.
Every instance Lukas describes is straightforward and easy to represent. The last set of icons, the leaf, acorn and cone aren't so much icons as they are logos for those particular applications. People will associate those marks with the application because they've seen the application first. Sit in front of computer with these icons dumped onto the task bar, having never seen them before, and people will have no clue what those applications are all about.
Simplifying graphics used to be more of a necessity because of lower resolutions and and fewer colors. That is no longer a concern. While I prefer more minimalist designs there is something appealing and immediately obvious about a rich, nicely rendered icon. The example he uses to argue against richer icons is pretty weak. I could drop a different photo of a camera in that space and it would be just as informative as the simple icon. Obviously there's a balance between aesthetic appeal and conveying an appropriate level of information. And consideration has to be given towards where those graphics will reside.
Well, this blogger has done his job. Regardless of how simplistic and obvious his argument is here we are discussing it.
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
If anything people at NASA are almost definitely erring on the side of excessive caution knowing what kind of backlash they'll get from the ignorant masses if anything more goes wrong.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that Avatar symbolized hatred for any nation. Rather the discussion dealt with Avatars simplistic criticism of technology and embrace of the unrealistic noble savage.
Although China is a lot closer to how humans are depicted in Avatar than America is I don't think their problem is with the core message of the movie. Rather, the Chinese government and indeed many Chinese citizens have problems with entertainment where individuals rise up against the establishment. It probably wouldn't have been a big deal if it hadn't been for this movie's popularity in China.
This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot. I'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different. However, to suggest that they'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.
Apple is a hardware maker, first and foremost, while both Google and Microsoft are software companies. And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side. This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration. Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions. The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements. And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised. It's far more difficult to provide a unified, closely maintained platform and an integrated app store. And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&T. Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there, and I'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.
For Microsoft, and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs. Apple again wins with integration. The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.
As for the search engines, those are pretty much irrelevant. Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there. From my experience they produce results of comparable quality. What matters, however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses. One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources, and obviously, because it's currently got the biggest market share. I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience. In this market Apple is really a non-entity. They've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that's it. I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all. It's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful. Office is still the better suite.
I think ultimately the question is, is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that's even remotely similar but at this point I don't yet see it. It would be a very different focus for Apple. I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally. Partnerships don't always turn out well for Apple and they don't really sync well with the company's focus on integration.
Having worked in Taiwan I found your claim hard to believe. And having read the article you referenced I see you also have issues with reading comprehension.
In Taiwan salaries are described in monthly income. The article even states that the average worker earns NT$36,564 a MONTH, which translates to roughly $13k a year. Certainly lower than the US, but far higher than a lot of other countries.
GT5 Prologue featured the same stiff, unnatural physics endemic to the entire series. However, in early December a time trial demo of GT5 was released which impressed me with how the physics engine had been improved. The featured car, a Nissan 370Z in the game seemed to handle more accurately, from the replays the car shifted around more convincingly and I'm pretty sure they're even accounting for tire flex. Although the demo did suffer from the same problem I've found in the GT series overall where a car stock is somehow more difficult to drive than the heavily modified version. In this case, the car in stock form had a propensity for excessive oversteer, which seems to be an over-compensation for the excessive understeer of most cars in previous games in the series.
That demo almost convinced to stick with GT5. But at this point, the delays have gotten so ridiculous that I don't think I'll buy it when it's released on principle alone. It's crossed my mind to sell my PS3 with all the games I own and get an Xbox360 and Forza 3.
I had no experience with the Forza series until a few months ago when I played Forza 3. I was immediately impressed. Overall it provides a convincing driving experience with a more convincing sense of speed than the sterile GT series provides. Forza may exaggerate the sense of speed somewhat, but the fact is that you're sitting in front of a television, not inside an actual car where the sense of motion would be far more profound. Even a friend of mine who had been a fairly devoted fan of the GT series has admitted that the Forza series provides a more entertaining experience. So what does GT5 offer over Forza 3? Nicer graphics and a larger library of cars. But Sony has long reached a point of diminishing returns. I'd say, in fact they reached that point back with GT4. What is the point of offering 1000 cars when nearly every gamer out there will only drive perhaps 5% of that number?
I'm guessing that Sony is pretty confident that gamers will buy GT5 in huge numbers regardless of the long wait. What they've lost in reduced sales of the PS3 over the past few years is a lot harder to quantify.
I'm not sure why he's been tagged a troll. What he says is true. People in the West have the benefit of living comfortable, carefree lives where they have the luxury of worrying about relatively insignificant problems. It's really not surprising people blow things out of proportion.
Things like DMCA are, without question, garbage. We should indeed fight to end this sort of thing. But stop trying to make it out to seem some kind of moral crusade where something profoundly crucial to our existence is somehow at stake. No one's going to die if they can't enjoy the current popular tv show, the latest Hollywood blockbusters or music from untalented, overrated pop stars.
Frankly, from my experience I don't think most Chinese are concerned about political censorship or torture and in fact seem to believe it's a good thing to maintain social order. But the fact remains that people from many parts of the world would laugh at us and the pathetic things we get worked up about.
Many, if not most women in porn look pretty horrid what with the bruises, embarrassing tattoos and plastic surgery. They'll look great in one photoshoot and everywhere else they look like a drug-addled 2 dollar whore. On top of that we have to endure guys getting in the way of the action with closeups of their scrotums flopping around like a fish out of water. HD is already a problem for porn, 3D will only make things worse although at this point in the game it's more a gimmick than anything.
Maybe all this technology will have the unintended consequence of turning people away from porn. Your average girl is more attractive than most porn stars. And with a real girl you're not usually exposed to someone who's been pounded into oblivion, viewing everything in extreme closeup.
As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.
I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light. Corporations exist to make money, and usually do so within the boundaries of the law. The people running these companies certainly may hold a particular set of morals, but ultimately they have to make decisions based on what's best for the company.
I think the important thing here is that China isn't nearly as important as Americans seem to believe, especially in the business world. Business idiots, in particular, seem to have a hard-on for China, despite the fact that they get burned time and time again. It's true that China has a massive population, but how many of those actually have disposable income? And of those who do have money to spend, how many of those have the money or inclination to spend on foreign goods as opposed to what's made by Chinese companies?
The advantage China enjoys over many other developing nations is that they're far further along in their economic development and are approaching a developed nation status. And that's assuming their economic growth isn't over-inflated as many are beginning to suspect. Certainly the Chinese are very nationalistic and ambitious, but that's really only advantageous for themselves and not the rest of the world. There are many other nations around the world seeing significant growth which have the chance to become very strong competitors for China, there's India, much of southeast Asia, South America, especially Brazil.
When it comes down to it, China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China. Five or ten years ago I suspect Google's management would have decided staying in China was worth the risk. Today, that's obviously not the case.
And there's something else to consider, some companies are more entrenched than others and some have more to lose in China. it's probably a lot easier to successfully knock off Google's products than it is Apple's or Microsoft's. There are dozens, of search engines, hundreds if not thousands of web apps and countless social networking sites. And there's a lot less loyalty to any particular tool than you find in the West. Something new comes along and as long as it's halfway decent people start using it. As quickly as companies fail there are many more right behind ready to take their place. All this is, without question, hurting Google's chances in China. There's no reason for Chinese to use Google, but there is certainly a lot of incentive for Chinese companies to steal what they can. And the Chinese government sure as hell isn't going to enforce foreign copyrights.
I find that hard to believe. A few months ago I went from appliance to appliance with one of those Kill-a-watt devices measuring electricity consumption over a 24 hour period. Usage was insignificant for devices in standby mode, this included my PS3, television and other electronics. And by insignificant I mean a couple of dollars a year for everything in total and this is at roughly 22 cents per kWh in my area.
Where I found heavy usage was from appliances used on a regular basis. The dryer, water heater (which I want to get replaced for a gas heater), air conditioning and things like that. Even my PC, which I leave on because of internet phone was only something like $60-$120 a year. I don't remember the exact figures; I'd have to consult my spreadsheet.
I've found that if you want to really cut utility costs you have to do a good bit of sacrificing. That means enduring the heat of the summer and not turning on air conditioning, running a dryer once a week, or better yet hanging your clothes out to dry. Certainly turning off lights in an unoccupied room helps, but with CFLs the savings there are minimal as well. Reducing the number of electronics you're running at any time certainly helps.
The only way to cut down on electricity usage is to take some fairly significant steps. The small stuff matters because when everyone is doing it that consumption really adds up, but on an individual basis it's pretty insignificant. I suppose living in a relatively small home helps.
I really don't understand the antipathy towards the Volt. Do people not understand how research and development works? GM has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars in research into this car, both directly and indirectly. How can anyone seriously expect this car to enter the market priced with low-cost economy cars? Even the Prius is priced the mid $20k and it's pretty cheap inside. The Insight is about $20k and it's even more compromised for the sake of keeping the price down. But somehow people see that the Volt is a hybrid and think it should cost what a Prius does without taking into account what's different about the technology.
The Japanese government has invested millions in their automakers to promote R&D. Why is it unreasonable that the US government does the same? I'd much rather my tax dollars go to things like this, which offers a real payoff as opposed to crap that only benefits to interest groups.
If GM does this right, the Volt could be a huge success for the company. Really, the most important thing is that the car delivers on what is being promised and is reasonably reliable. In the long term, if the car turns out to be a hit, GM had better be smart enough to capitalize on that success.
You're confusing conservatives and republicans. Conservatives are for reduced spending. Republicans realize this and lie so that they get voted into office. Conservatives, however, have woken up to this fact and that's why the republicans have lost big. I'm still waiting for liberals to realize that democrats are screwing them over in the same way.
Properly placed physical buttons and dials are, by far, the best control scheme for digital cameras. You need that physical feedback in order to know what you're pressing when you're taking photos. I'd rather keep my eyes on the subject instead of having to look down at the camera constantly to see what I'm doing. In cars it's even more important that your eyes stay focus on the road and aren't distracted by touch screens and whatnot.
Tablet PCs are far more logical. And for desktops, I'm not sure why no one has developed a PC where the display sits closer to the user, inclined like a drafting table. You look down on it like reading a book, and it's far more comfortable to interact with the touch screen since it's no different than moving around stuff on the desk.
The only viable use for gesture controls is computers and gaming consoles. And even then the value is dubious outside of games. It's impractical and exhausting. Imagine trying to keep your arms elevated for any length of time and manipulating items on screen with precision. This is all a stupid fad derived from recent sci fi movies. Technology may reach a point when we we'll get tactile feedback in mid-air making this sort of thing viable, but we're not there yet. And by the time we get to that point we will probably be able to effectively interact with computers using thought.
No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.
Certainly, given the widespread use of mobile phones and their clear value to us, it would be quite earth-shattering to discover a clear and specific link between phones and cancer. However, at this point I've say the threat is likely quite minimal with moderate use. But mobile phones haven't been around nearly long enough for us to be able to gauge their effects on us. Wait until this generation starts aging; then we'll have a better indication of whether or not cell phones are a danger or not.
You seem fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because that one shows a positive side-effect. There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.
Last year a couple of guys a couple of guys BASE jumped off the Burj Dubai. They managed to get away with it. If I remember correctly, one of the guys went back for a second attempt and I think he was arrested. The video of the jump was available online.
The Petronas Towers were indeed linked fairly closely to the Asian Financial Crisis. Taipei 101, however, had little to do with the dotcom boom. Construction on the building, first of all, began well after that bubble burst. And secondly, Taiwan has a robust economy that is dependent on far more than internet startups.
I was living in Taiwan when the bubble burst in the US. Taiwan felt it before Americans wanted to acknowledge it was coming. When the US was at the height of that recession, after 9/11, Taiwan was already recovering.
You haven't watched enough Asian movies if you think they're unpredictable. Well, nearly all Hong Kong movies and the mainstream Japanese movies. Hong Kong filmmakers implement the standard Hollywood formula to an almost absurd degree, although it was even worse in the 90s when they were just pumping out movies. Japanese movies are predictable in their desperate attempt to be different and convoluted. Everything else tends to be more art house which even few natives watch so those don't really count.
And I've seen plenty of more recent mainstream European movies that feature the same Hollywood-style film-making. I will admit, that they can be more adventurous at times.
I agree that China hasn't qualified as a true developing nation in quite a while. But China is far from having the best infrastructure in the world. One story about new high speed rail lines isn't really indicative of anything.
The thing with China is that when they decide to do something they just do it. There is no dicking around with impact studies. They come up with a plan, acquire the land, and implement it and do so quickly. Of course, a lot of people along the way lose their property. They're usually compensated, but they're not necessarily compensated appropriately. And if you happen to be poor, then you're really screwed. It's not unheard of for people to get home from work and find their homes demolished. And let's not get into all the corruption, Americans don't even know the meaning of the word.
But the negatives aside, they do get things done and do them quickly and this is something that is still common throughout Asia, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. And generally people get behind all this because they see it as a sign of progress and an effort to improve everyone's life.
In the US, however, what do we get? We get all the environmental and economic studies, along with the other crap they decide to dream up. Then proposals have to be debated in a convoluted, drawn out process. Then environmental, preservation and various groups get involved. Environmentalists will find some animal or plant that's threatened. The preservation groups will fight hard to protect some insignificant 100-year-old structure no one really cared about before it was threatened with new development. Then come all the community groups who will block any new development even if it would benefit them.
If by some miracle the plan gets passed all that crap chances are it's been compromised and has been scaled down in scope. Then come the politicians who need to pander to every little group and screw things up even further. And when lobbyists get involved, everything goes to the shitter. As is too often the case, they're more interested in playing politics than making the kinds of decisions that actually help the country.
Once we get to the construction phase it somehow always turns into a boondoggle that costs 4 times as much and takes twice as long to complete as initially projected. Pass the construction site and there will always be a couple of guys standing around watching one guy work. When I was living in Asia I can't recall ever seeing construction workers just standing around; they were always doing something. If they had the same ethic I see in a lot of people in this country they'd be reprimanded harshly and eventually out of a job.
Unfortunately, our stimulus money is generally going to garbage. Instead of investing in projects which will provide long-term benefits the money is going to find busy work, basically. In my area over $60 million in stimulus money is being squandered on restoring bridges over a highway built during the Great Depression. Somehow, some groups managed to get the roadway and it's ugly, uninspired 80-year old bridges designated as a historical landmark. Tens of millions wasted on a project that will make no impact on the area whatsoever. And they've already botched the repaving in some areas, having to scrape off newly painted lines and paint in new ones just a foot or two over. In the meantime, we've got these upscale communities which have successfully blocked the construction of a highway for decades which would dramatically help everyone in the region and improve a number of local economies. And the best part is how, in many places, the land was already set aside for the project.
And lets not get into the garbage that are the companies running rail lines in this country. I don't think they have the capabilities of successfully running a high speed rail line. They can barely manage what they've got now.
While I'd like to see high speed rail, what is far more crucial is an extensive rail network. Take a look at a map of the rail system around Tokyo, for e
Slashdot Mirror
Say what you will, but most Chinese will disagree with you.
By no means am I suggesting it's all roses in China. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that China engages in anything on the level the Soviets did. China did plenty of that in the 50s and 60s and if they were still doing it they wouldn't be enjoying this economic boom.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the US does. But in general limits on social freedoms is very consistent with Chinese and asian culture.
There have been politicians in Hong Kong fighting increased Chinese control over the territory and several have resigned in protest. It makes sense since Hong Kong was exposed to the West so extensively for so long. That said, I'm curious to know if the average citizen even cares. Taiwan, which surveys have found to have among the most open-minded people in Asia, share many of these same beliefs. Certainly, exposure to Western culture is slowly eroding some of these long-held ideals.
I do find it ridiculous that Sergey Brin would somehow be touched by this cause considering that the situation in China is nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR. The Chinese government today is communist in name only. It makes me wonder if Google isn't making all this up to avoid discussion of the real reasons for their leaving China.
This thing would have been far more appealing to me if it ran a customized version of OSX, in essence making it a more portable alternative to a laptop. Instead we get a glorified iPod touch chained, as are those devices, to the app store. While a tablet PC is very appealing to me I can get a netbook, which offers more functionality, for less money.
And I'm convinced neither the iPod nor this thing supports Flash for the simple reason that it would undermine the app store. As it stands this thing is pretty disappointing. I was looking forward to a proper tablet PC. Way better than a laptop or phone he says when for me it's got the worst of both. It's too big to carry around like an iPhone and doesn't have nearly the functionality of a laptop, at least not without being nickel and dimed for that functionality.
This is very frustrating. Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space. But unfortunately we're constantly hindered myopic, self-centered politicians. Unfortunately these kinds of programs require long-term commitments and do nothing to garner votes.
At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon. Despite all the problems I have with the Chinese government I have to give credit where it's do. They generally seem to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. On the other hand, the US is saddled with a government interested in pushing agendas and pandering to special interests. Even when they get involved with something that could be beneficial it's mired down by garbage and the end result ends up not amounting to much of anything. But the problem doesn't just lie with the government. It lies with the citizens and their increasingly self-centered attitudes.
This sort of thing makes me regret having moved back to the states.
One thing that we can be sure of is that Apple is going to tout this tablet like they've invented this type device. The people at Apple are smart in that they aren't early adopters of new technologies. Others do it first and run into the issues anyone will face with technology in it's infancy. The segments of the market generally starts petering out as those guys move onto devices and that's when Apple jumps in.
It helps immensely that developing both hardware and software Apple has the huge advantage of good integration. With every other hardware maker they have to go with whatever is available at the time. The software developers, mainly Microsoft and Google have to partner with a hardware company. That almost always consists of an existing product being customized to their needs. Unfortunately this always results in a compromised product. There's nothing like being able to do everything in-house with teams working back and forth.
I have a Sony tablet PC, which I got second-hand. It's the U70 if I'm not mistaken. It came out back in 04 or so, when PC makers were eager to push the technology. It runs Windows XP and performs reasonably well actually. Unfortunately, these things were mainly hindered by the OS. Instead of developing a customized OS to enhance usability they were basically making them full-fledged PCs but more compact. This generally made them a pain to operate. I suppose it was just a sign of the times, because although Sony offered various on-screen input methods the keyboard was generally not given much on-screen real estate. They were still expecting users to interact with the device using a stylus. The touchscreen itself was good but certainly doesn't compare with what is possible with the technology today. The upside was that I could connect a monitor and keyboard to the thing and use it like a regular PC.
The device was a novelty, as a tablet today is for most people. Mine sits around collecting dust most of the time. However, for a couple of weeks I used it when I was traveling and it was great. That's where the compact size is a real asset. Being able to pull that thing out and start browsing the web is excellent. And the good thing is that because it's a PC, basically, I get a proper browsing experience and can do anything I might need to do at home or in the office. It's not a compromised experience like Smartphones provide. However, the lack of a physical keyboard is a problem if you expect to do a lot of typing with the device. I'm sure touchscreen technology has improved to the point where typing on-screen is a bit better than it used to be, but it probably still won't be great. Some of the newer Sony tablets use integrated physical keyboards, but I'm not sure if those are any good.
The fact is, if you've got an iPhone, which most people interested in this tablet likely do, there's little need for this device. If this thing is running a version of the iPhone's OS then there's even less use for it. In my opinion a tablet should be a more portable alternative to a laptop, not a big brother to a mobile phone. Otherwise I expect these things to collect a lot of dust. I don't use my tablet PC for much of anything nowadays; I've installed automotive diagnostics software on it and even that doesn't get much use.
What this guy says is true; it's also obvious. There are two reasons why we encounter unintuitive icons. The first is an overzealous designer who thinks he is going to be creative by not conforming to conventions; this is where I find Linux GUIs tend to fail miserably. It seems whoever designs their interfaces tend to be going for different as opposed to intuitive. The second is a more pervasive problem: trying to convey an abstract concept.
Every instance Lukas describes is straightforward and easy to represent. The last set of icons, the leaf, acorn and cone aren't so much icons as they are logos for those particular applications. People will associate those marks with the application because they've seen the application first. Sit in front of computer with these icons dumped onto the task bar, having never seen them before, and people will have no clue what those applications are all about.
Simplifying graphics used to be more of a necessity because of lower resolutions and and fewer colors. That is no longer a concern. While I prefer more minimalist designs there is something appealing and immediately obvious about a rich, nicely rendered icon. The example he uses to argue against richer icons is pretty weak. I could drop a different photo of a camera in that space and it would be just as informative as the simple icon. Obviously there's a balance between aesthetic appeal and conveying an appropriate level of information. And consideration has to be given towards where those graphics will reside.
Well, this blogger has done his job. Regardless of how simplistic and obvious his argument is here we are discussing it.
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
If anything people at NASA are almost definitely erring on the side of excessive caution knowing what kind of backlash they'll get from the ignorant masses if anything more goes wrong.
So you're suggesting we tax them less than they're taxed now?
I don't think anyone was suggesting that Avatar symbolized hatred for any nation. Rather the discussion dealt with Avatars simplistic criticism of technology and embrace of the unrealistic noble savage.
Although China is a lot closer to how humans are depicted in Avatar than America is I don't think their problem is with the core message of the movie. Rather, the Chinese government and indeed many Chinese citizens have problems with entertainment where individuals rise up against the establishment. It probably wouldn't have been a big deal if it hadn't been for this movie's popularity in China.
This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot. I'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different. However, to suggest that they'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.
Apple is a hardware maker, first and foremost, while both Google and Microsoft are software companies. And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side. This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration. Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions. The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements. And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised. It's far more difficult to provide a unified, closely maintained platform and an integrated app store. And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&T. Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there, and I'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.
For Microsoft, and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs. Apple again wins with integration. The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.
As for the search engines, those are pretty much irrelevant. Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there. From my experience they produce results of comparable quality. What matters, however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses. One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources, and obviously, because it's currently got the biggest market share. I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience. In this market Apple is really a non-entity. They've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that's it. I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all. It's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful. Office is still the better suite.
I think ultimately the question is, is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that's even remotely similar but at this point I don't yet see it. It would be a very different focus for Apple. I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally. Partnerships don't always turn out well for Apple and they don't really sync well with the company's focus on integration.
Having worked in Taiwan I found your claim hard to believe. And having read the article you referenced I see you also have issues with reading comprehension.
In Taiwan salaries are described in monthly income. The article even states that the average worker earns NT$36,564 a MONTH, which translates to roughly $13k a year. Certainly lower than the US, but far higher than a lot of other countries.
GT5 Prologue featured the same stiff, unnatural physics endemic to the entire series. However, in early December a time trial demo of GT5 was released which impressed me with how the physics engine had been improved. The featured car, a Nissan 370Z in the game seemed to handle more accurately, from the replays the car shifted around more convincingly and I'm pretty sure they're even accounting for tire flex. Although the demo did suffer from the same problem I've found in the GT series overall where a car stock is somehow more difficult to drive than the heavily modified version. In this case, the car in stock form had a propensity for excessive oversteer, which seems to be an over-compensation for the excessive understeer of most cars in previous games in the series.
That demo almost convinced to stick with GT5. But at this point, the delays have gotten so ridiculous that I don't think I'll buy it when it's released on principle alone. It's crossed my mind to sell my PS3 with all the games I own and get an Xbox360 and Forza 3.
I had no experience with the Forza series until a few months ago when I played Forza 3. I was immediately impressed. Overall it provides a convincing driving experience with a more convincing sense of speed than the sterile GT series provides. Forza may exaggerate the sense of speed somewhat, but the fact is that you're sitting in front of a television, not inside an actual car where the sense of motion would be far more profound. Even a friend of mine who had been a fairly devoted fan of the GT series has admitted that the Forza series provides a more entertaining experience. So what does GT5 offer over Forza 3? Nicer graphics and a larger library of cars. But Sony has long reached a point of diminishing returns. I'd say, in fact they reached that point back with GT4. What is the point of offering 1000 cars when nearly every gamer out there will only drive perhaps 5% of that number?
I'm guessing that Sony is pretty confident that gamers will buy GT5 in huge numbers regardless of the long wait. What they've lost in reduced sales of the PS3 over the past few years is a lot harder to quantify.
I'm not sure why he's been tagged a troll. What he says is true. People in the West have the benefit of living comfortable, carefree lives where they have the luxury of worrying about relatively insignificant problems. It's really not surprising people blow things out of proportion.
Things like DMCA are, without question, garbage. We should indeed fight to end this sort of thing. But stop trying to make it out to seem some kind of moral crusade where something profoundly crucial to our existence is somehow at stake. No one's going to die if they can't enjoy the current popular tv show, the latest Hollywood blockbusters or music from untalented, overrated pop stars.
Frankly, from my experience I don't think most Chinese are concerned about political censorship or torture and in fact seem to believe it's a good thing to maintain social order. But the fact remains that people from many parts of the world would laugh at us and the pathetic things we get worked up about.
Many, if not most women in porn look pretty horrid what with the bruises, embarrassing tattoos and plastic surgery. They'll look great in one photoshoot and everywhere else they look like a drug-addled 2 dollar whore. On top of that we have to endure guys getting in the way of the action with closeups of their scrotums flopping around like a fish out of water. HD is already a problem for porn, 3D will only make things worse although at this point in the game it's more a gimmick than anything.
Maybe all this technology will have the unintended consequence of turning people away from porn. Your average girl is more attractive than most porn stars. And with a real girl you're not usually exposed to someone who's been pounded into oblivion, viewing everything in extreme closeup.
As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.
I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light. Corporations exist to make money, and usually do so within the boundaries of the law. The people running these companies certainly may hold a particular set of morals, but ultimately they have to make decisions based on what's best for the company.
I think the important thing here is that China isn't nearly as important as Americans seem to believe, especially in the business world. Business idiots, in particular, seem to have a hard-on for China, despite the fact that they get burned time and time again. It's true that China has a massive population, but how many of those actually have disposable income? And of those who do have money to spend, how many of those have the money or inclination to spend on foreign goods as opposed to what's made by Chinese companies?
The advantage China enjoys over many other developing nations is that they're far further along in their economic development and are approaching a developed nation status. And that's assuming their economic growth isn't over-inflated as many are beginning to suspect. Certainly the Chinese are very nationalistic and ambitious, but that's really only advantageous for themselves and not the rest of the world. There are many other nations around the world seeing significant growth which have the chance to become very strong competitors for China, there's India, much of southeast Asia, South America, especially Brazil.
When it comes down to it, China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China. Five or ten years ago I suspect Google's management would have decided staying in China was worth the risk. Today, that's obviously not the case.
And there's something else to consider, some companies are more entrenched than others and some have more to lose in China. it's probably a lot easier to successfully knock off Google's products than it is Apple's or Microsoft's. There are dozens, of search engines, hundreds if not thousands of web apps and countless social networking sites. And there's a lot less loyalty to any particular tool than you find in the West. Something new comes along and as long as it's halfway decent people start using it. As quickly as companies fail there are many more right behind ready to take their place. All this is, without question, hurting Google's chances in China. There's no reason for Chinese to use Google, but there is certainly a lot of incentive for Chinese companies to steal what they can. And the Chinese government sure as hell isn't going to enforce foreign copyrights.
I find that hard to believe. A few months ago I went from appliance to appliance with one of those Kill-a-watt devices measuring electricity consumption over a 24 hour period. Usage was insignificant for devices in standby mode, this included my PS3, television and other electronics. And by insignificant I mean a couple of dollars a year for everything in total and this is at roughly 22 cents per kWh in my area.
Where I found heavy usage was from appliances used on a regular basis. The dryer, water heater (which I want to get replaced for a gas heater), air conditioning and things like that. Even my PC, which I leave on because of internet phone was only something like $60-$120 a year. I don't remember the exact figures; I'd have to consult my spreadsheet.
I've found that if you want to really cut utility costs you have to do a good bit of sacrificing. That means enduring the heat of the summer and not turning on air conditioning, running a dryer once a week, or better yet hanging your clothes out to dry. Certainly turning off lights in an unoccupied room helps, but with CFLs the savings there are minimal as well. Reducing the number of electronics you're running at any time certainly helps.
The only way to cut down on electricity usage is to take some fairly significant steps. The small stuff matters because when everyone is doing it that consumption really adds up, but on an individual basis it's pretty insignificant. I suppose living in a relatively small home helps.
I really don't understand the antipathy towards the Volt. Do people not understand how research and development works? GM has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars in research into this car, both directly and indirectly. How can anyone seriously expect this car to enter the market priced with low-cost economy cars? Even the Prius is priced the mid $20k and it's pretty cheap inside. The Insight is about $20k and it's even more compromised for the sake of keeping the price down. But somehow people see that the Volt is a hybrid and think it should cost what a Prius does without taking into account what's different about the technology.
The Japanese government has invested millions in their automakers to promote R&D. Why is it unreasonable that the US government does the same? I'd much rather my tax dollars go to things like this, which offers a real payoff as opposed to crap that only benefits to interest groups.
If GM does this right, the Volt could be a huge success for the company. Really, the most important thing is that the car delivers on what is being promised and is reasonably reliable. In the long term, if the car turns out to be a hit, GM had better be smart enough to capitalize on that success.
You're confusing conservatives and republicans. Conservatives are for reduced spending. Republicans realize this and lie so that they get voted into office. Conservatives, however, have woken up to this fact and that's why the republicans have lost big. I'm still waiting for liberals to realize that democrats are screwing them over in the same way.
Properly placed physical buttons and dials are, by far, the best control scheme for digital cameras. You need that physical feedback in order to know what you're pressing when you're taking photos. I'd rather keep my eyes on the subject instead of having to look down at the camera constantly to see what I'm doing. In cars it's even more important that your eyes stay focus on the road and aren't distracted by touch screens and whatnot.
Tablet PCs are far more logical. And for desktops, I'm not sure why no one has developed a PC where the display sits closer to the user, inclined like a drafting table. You look down on it like reading a book, and it's far more comfortable to interact with the touch screen since it's no different than moving around stuff on the desk.
The only viable use for gesture controls is computers and gaming consoles. And even then the value is dubious outside of games. It's impractical and exhausting. Imagine trying to keep your arms elevated for any length of time and manipulating items on screen with precision. This is all a stupid fad derived from recent sci fi movies. Technology may reach a point when we we'll get tactile feedback in mid-air making this sort of thing viable, but we're not there yet. And by the time we get to that point we will probably be able to effectively interact with computers using thought.
No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.
Certainly, given the widespread use of mobile phones and their clear value to us, it would be quite earth-shattering to discover a clear and specific link between phones and cancer. However, at this point I've say the threat is likely quite minimal with moderate use. But mobile phones haven't been around nearly long enough for us to be able to gauge their effects on us. Wait until this generation starts aging; then we'll have a better indication of whether or not cell phones are a danger or not.
You seem fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because that one shows a positive side-effect. There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.
Last year a couple of guys a couple of guys BASE jumped off the Burj Dubai. They managed to get away with it. If I remember correctly, one of the guys went back for a second attempt and I think he was arrested. The video of the jump was available online.
The Petronas Towers were indeed linked fairly closely to the Asian Financial Crisis. Taipei 101, however, had little to do with the dotcom boom. Construction on the building, first of all, began well after that bubble burst. And secondly, Taiwan has a robust economy that is dependent on far more than internet startups.
I was living in Taiwan when the bubble burst in the US. Taiwan felt it before Americans wanted to acknowledge it was coming. When the US was at the height of that recession, after 9/11, Taiwan was already recovering.
You haven't watched enough Asian movies if you think they're unpredictable. Well, nearly all Hong Kong movies and the mainstream Japanese movies. Hong Kong filmmakers implement the standard Hollywood formula to an almost absurd degree, although it was even worse in the 90s when they were just pumping out movies. Japanese movies are predictable in their desperate attempt to be different and convoluted. Everything else tends to be more art house which even few natives watch so those don't really count.
And I've seen plenty of more recent mainstream European movies that feature the same Hollywood-style film-making. I will admit, that they can be more adventurous at times.
I agree that China hasn't qualified as a true developing nation in quite a while. But China is far from having the best infrastructure in the world. One story about new high speed rail lines isn't really indicative of anything.
The thing with China is that when they decide to do something they just do it. There is no dicking around with impact studies. They come up with a plan, acquire the land, and implement it and do so quickly. Of course, a lot of people along the way lose their property. They're usually compensated, but they're not necessarily compensated appropriately. And if you happen to be poor, then you're really screwed. It's not unheard of for people to get home from work and find their homes demolished. And let's not get into all the corruption, Americans don't even know the meaning of the word.
But the negatives aside, they do get things done and do them quickly and this is something that is still common throughout Asia, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. And generally people get behind all this because they see it as a sign of progress and an effort to improve everyone's life.
In the US, however, what do we get? We get all the environmental and economic studies, along with the other crap they decide to dream up. Then proposals have to be debated in a convoluted, drawn out process. Then environmental, preservation and various groups get involved. Environmentalists will find some animal or plant that's threatened. The preservation groups will fight hard to protect some insignificant 100-year-old structure no one really cared about before it was threatened with new development. Then come all the community groups who will block any new development even if it would benefit them.
If by some miracle the plan gets passed all that crap chances are it's been compromised and has been scaled down in scope. Then come the politicians who need to pander to every little group and screw things up even further. And when lobbyists get involved, everything goes to the shitter. As is too often the case, they're more interested in playing politics than making the kinds of decisions that actually help the country.
Once we get to the construction phase it somehow always turns into a boondoggle that costs 4 times as much and takes twice as long to complete as initially projected. Pass the construction site and there will always be a couple of guys standing around watching one guy work. When I was living in Asia I can't recall ever seeing construction workers just standing around; they were always doing something. If they had the same ethic I see in a lot of people in this country they'd be reprimanded harshly and eventually out of a job.
Unfortunately, our stimulus money is generally going to garbage. Instead of investing in projects which will provide long-term benefits the money is going to find busy work, basically. In my area over $60 million in stimulus money is being squandered on restoring bridges over a highway built during the Great Depression. Somehow, some groups managed to get the roadway and it's ugly, uninspired 80-year old bridges designated as a historical landmark. Tens of millions wasted on a project that will make no impact on the area whatsoever. And they've already botched the repaving in some areas, having to scrape off newly painted lines and paint in new ones just a foot or two over. In the meantime, we've got these upscale communities which have successfully blocked the construction of a highway for decades which would dramatically help everyone in the region and improve a number of local economies. And the best part is how, in many places, the land was already set aside for the project.
And lets not get into the garbage that are the companies running rail lines in this country. I don't think they have the capabilities of successfully running a high speed rail line. They can barely manage what they've got now.
While I'd like to see high speed rail, what is far more crucial is an extensive rail network. Take a look at a map of the rail system around Tokyo, for e
Yeah, because Media Matters is a bastion of impartiality who never take anything out of context and never blow anything out or proportion.