I'm a huge fan of the idea of sharing screens. As a teacher, that's the first thing I looked at for the iPad.
Education administrators are on fire about the idea of smart boards, but that technology does little to change the classroom. I want the capacity to connect to a tablet with a touch screen, and then go sit by little Johnny, who is busy flirting with Susie, while I take notes. Disconnecting the teacher and the board changes classroom dynamics significantly. I use a slate system now, that let's me write on the board, but the learning curve for non-techie teachers is huge. They have to look at the screen to see what they are writing. Most give it up.
So, I'd love to see this capacity built into a tablet, but until it is, do any of you geekier-than-I types know of a good solution for this concept that might exists now?
saved you 10 seconds of thinking time that you have wasted by now reading this comment.
No you didn't. I had to do a quick Google search to find it...that took ten seconds, THEN I read your comment, then I replied to it, spending nearly thirty seconds trying to think of something pithy to say. In reality, your post cost me over forty seconds. Next time please post useful tidbits of information as the first post.
They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.
You must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.
Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.
Either stand behind your words or don't bother. We don't need Freedom of Expression becoming a forum troll's fallback. Living in a world of false accusations and slander without recourse is not one I care for.
The problem here is that it wasn't Google's words. Why is Google being held responsible for someone else's words?
If the comment was liable, can't the courts subpoena the ip address and go after the poster?
There is a difference; the cost on entry is pretty low for a website while astronomical for a TV station(not including public access). Don't visit the horrific sites that bother you with ads. Find a nice little corner of the internet and hang out where people are willing to pay their money for your entertainment and mooch off of them until they can't afford to do it anymore, then find someone else who is willing to pay for your entertainment, and repeat.
Just don't complain that other people are trying to make a living by providing a service supported by ads. If you don't like it, fine. Just go somewhere else.
So Google knows which words you mistyped? You know, once you hit enter with text in MS's search box, they know what you searched for too.
You can have an issue with Google and privacy, but come on. The fact that they send keystrokes back instead of the whole search query is not the issue.
And might I suggest, that if the world governments could muster the consolidated effort to form a world government, they might be able to muster the effort to deal with global warming.
Of course with the world government option, they would see a political incentive, not a social, moral, ethical one...you know...this might just work.
It's too bad they are forcing us all with loaded guns to write cloud apps.
It's new, so it's in the news...get it...news.... It seems to me that local apps are still going fairly strong, but someone opening an online store for software downloads wouldn't really be newsworthy. If this is just a fad, then just wait it out. People will be back to local apps momentarily.
Is it just me or are people getting more and more adversarial about relatively minor things?
I have my students write many of their essays in Google Docs where they are required to edit their team's essays. Then they transfer them to Word or an equivalent processor. I'm wondering if Google's purchase of DocVerse will make the last step unnecessary. But as you said, the collaborative elements are impressive. Especially when students are in a lab and can watch, in relative real-time what others are thinking about what they wrote.
A desktop mail client works great when the network goes down. It stores the emails you wanted to send and then sends them when the network comes back up. You can still search through whatever data you have on your drive. With webmail the inbox is a different page that requires server interaction to display at all.
I readily admit I don't keep as up to date with this stuff as some of you immersed in the industry, but aren't HTML5 and Google Gears designed to minimize this issue? I'm wondering how much of this concern is centering on the fact that the web app paradigm is nascent. You have to admit, the idea of one app for all platforms on any computer is a nice one. Could it be that these are relatively early bugs that need to be ironed out?
I remember when AJAX first became a buzzword that everyone talked about how complicated it was to implement, and now, with jQuery, a simple hobbyist like me can put together a relatively complex discussion board with AJAX calls with little work.
I meant parasitic in that one party, the reader with ad block always on, benefits at the expense and eventually the demise of the other.
A parasite could say that there is no reason contract between it and its host. I wasn't try to draw a moral distinction, though I can see how it would be taken that way; I was only implying that to avoid all advertising eventually kills that upon with you feed.
Most of my favourite websites are ad-free or allow subscription.
I'd venture to say there might be a few people with different aesthetic and content opinions than you. While you might be willing to pay, not everyone would. My original point was that we, as consumers, can influence the quality of the internet by where we allow ads to appear. I think/. does a decent job of providing a resource, so I don't turn their ads off. If I don't like a site, I would.
Really. Deal.
I know these kinds of rhetorical flourishes are fun, but I prefer to keep a level of civility, so we can discuss things without them turning into flame wars. It might be we both have useful opinions in the larger discussion.
You pay for a connection to the internet if I'm not mistaken.
And like I said, I accept your jaded, and apparently angry, perspective. My point though was that if we all thought like you, the internet would shrivel up and die. I wish we had a world that would allow for free content to all, but as it is now, many of the people who create the content have families to feed and mortgages or rent to pay.
I agree that we've been seeing an influx of more annoying ads over the years, but we have a more diluted market place, so companies are struggling to make money. Personally I'd like to see the good sites stay, hence my willingness to view ads on those sites, and for the bad ones to go away, hence my avoidance of those sites.
Blocking every ad that comes across the screen blindly punishes good sites and bad ones equally. Forbes used to have audio ads that were hard to find and impossible to turn off, so I stopped going to Forbes. Slashdot hasn't presented me with intrusive ads, so I leave the ads on, even though I could disable them.
You aren't leaving them a lot of room for creativity.
Your criteria is don't charge me and don't show me anything I don't want to see, and still provide me with good content.
Using the "Get creative" argument is an attempt for wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Your comments suggest this is an all or nothing issue for you. Why not allow simple text ads that aren't intrusive, but don't visit sites that have too many blinking flashing ads that truly ARE annoying?
No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad. No-one EVER will.
I've actually seen some interesting items in flashing ads, but I'll leave the page, clear my cache and cookies, then go google the site, so that the company with the ad doesn't know the flashy ad worked...
What a parasitic way to think about the content on the internet...
Personally, I try to reward good content...yeah that's you slashdot...sometimes...by allowing their ads. But I accept your somewhat jaded perspective. Hopefully their are enough people like me out there, so good sites don't fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a huge fan of the idea of sharing screens. As a teacher, that's the first thing I looked at for the iPad.
Education administrators are on fire about the idea of smart boards, but that technology does little to change the classroom. I want the capacity to connect to a tablet with a touch screen, and then go sit by little Johnny, who is busy flirting with Susie, while I take notes. Disconnecting the teacher and the board changes classroom dynamics significantly. I use a slate system now, that let's me write on the board, but the learning curve for non-techie teachers is huge. They have to look at the screen to see what they are writing. Most give it up.
So, I'd love to see this capacity built into a tablet, but until it is, do any of you geekier-than-I types know of a good solution for this concept that might exists now?
No you didn't. I had to do a quick Google search to find it...that took ten seconds, THEN I read your comment, then I replied to it, spending nearly thirty seconds trying to think of something pithy to say. In reality, your post cost me over forty seconds. Next time please post useful tidbits of information as the first post.
God, I love reading the comments on this site.
I have no idea if you know what you are talking about, but you better believe I will be pulling this shit out at the next party I go to.
You must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.
Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.
It was more of a hypothetical about how things could/should be.
The problem here is that it wasn't Google's words. Why is Google being held responsible for someone else's words?
If the comment was liable, can't the courts subpoena the ip address and go after the poster?
There is a difference; the cost on entry is pretty low for a website while astronomical for a TV station(not including public access). Don't visit the horrific sites that bother you with ads. Find a nice little corner of the internet and hang out where people are willing to pay their money for your entertainment and mooch off of them until they can't afford to do it anymore, then find someone else who is willing to pay for your entertainment, and repeat.
Just don't complain that other people are trying to make a living by providing a service supported by ads. If you don't like it, fine. Just go somewhere else.
It should be an app for the iPhone you can play while sitting in rush hour traffic. You can at least pretend that you're getting home on time.
Dude...you told em! There's nothing like saying you are above something by posting how stupid it is in a discussion about it.
So Google knows which words you mistyped? You know, once you hit enter with text in MS's search box, they know what you searched for too.
You can have an issue with Google and privacy, but come on. The fact that they send keystrokes back instead of the whole search query is not the issue.
And might I suggest, that if the world governments could muster the consolidated effort to form a world government, they might be able to muster the effort to deal with global warming.
Of course with the world government option, they would see a political incentive, not a social, moral, ethical one...you know...this might just work.
You have to stand about 3 feet away, and let your eyes go fuzzy. It's a cute picture of a unicorn.
I'm sad...
My God! They've outlawed desktop applications???
It's too bad they are forcing us all with loaded guns to write cloud apps.
It's new, so it's in the news...get it...news.... It seems to me that local apps are still going fairly strong, but someone opening an online store for software downloads wouldn't really be newsworthy. If this is just a fad, then just wait it out. People will be back to local apps momentarily.
Is it just me or are people getting more and more adversarial about relatively minor things?
Please, we've had flying cars since the 1930s. Duke Nukem Forever, I can't help you with...
I have my students write many of their essays in Google Docs where they are required to edit their team's essays. Then they transfer them to Word or an equivalent processor. I'm wondering if Google's purchase of DocVerse will make the last step unnecessary. But as you said, the collaborative elements are impressive. Especially when students are in a lab and can watch, in relative real-time what others are thinking about what they wrote.
I readily admit I don't keep as up to date with this stuff as some of you immersed in the industry, but aren't HTML5 and Google Gears designed to minimize this issue? I'm wondering how much of this concern is centering on the fact that the web app paradigm is nascent. You have to admit, the idea of one app for all platforms on any computer is a nice one. Could it be that these are relatively early bugs that need to be ironed out?
I remember when AJAX first became a buzzword that everyone talked about how complicated it was to implement, and now, with jQuery, a simple hobbyist like me can put together a relatively complex discussion board with AJAX calls with little work.
I meant parasitic in that one party, the reader with ad block always on, benefits at the expense and eventually the demise of the other.
A parasite could say that there is no reason contract between it and its host. I wasn't try to draw a moral distinction, though I can see how it would be taken that way; I was only implying that to avoid all advertising eventually kills that upon with you feed.
I'd venture to say there might be a few people with different aesthetic and content opinions than you. While you might be willing to pay, not everyone would. My original point was that we, as consumers, can influence the quality of the internet by where we allow ads to appear. I think /. does a decent job of providing a resource, so I don't turn their ads off. If I don't like a site, I would.
I know these kinds of rhetorical flourishes are fun, but I prefer to keep a level of civility, so we can discuss things without them turning into flame wars. It might be we both have useful opinions in the larger discussion.
Damn it!
You pay for a connection to the internet if I'm not mistaken.
And like I said, I accept your jaded, and apparently angry, perspective. My point though was that if we all thought like you, the internet would shrivel up and die. I wish we had a world that would allow for free content to all, but as it is now, many of the people who create the content have families to feed and mortgages or rent to pay.
I agree that we've been seeing an influx of more annoying ads over the years, but we have a more diluted market place, so companies are struggling to make money. Personally I'd like to see the good sites stay, hence my willingness to view ads on those sites, and for the bad ones to go away, hence my avoidance of those sites.
Blocking every ad that comes across the screen blindly punishes good sites and bad ones equally. Forbes used to have audio ads that were hard to find and impossible to turn off, so I stopped going to Forbes. Slashdot hasn't presented me with intrusive ads, so I leave the ads on, even though I could disable them.
Ok, good suggestion. Let's go into business and make it happen. Kidding of course. I'd have no idea how to put that together.
You aren't leaving them a lot of room for creativity.
Your criteria is don't charge me and don't show me anything I don't want to see, and still provide me with good content.
Using the "Get creative" argument is an attempt for wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Your comments suggest this is an all or nothing issue for you. Why not allow simple text ads that aren't intrusive, but don't visit sites that have too many blinking flashing ads that truly ARE annoying?
I've actually seen some interesting items in flashing ads, but I'll leave the page, clear my cache and cookies, then go google the site, so that the company with the ad doesn't know the flashy ad worked...
Wow.
What a parasitic way to think about the content on the internet...
Personally, I try to reward good content...yeah that's you slashdot...sometimes...by allowing their ads. But I accept your somewhat jaded perspective. Hopefully their are enough people like me out there, so good sites don't fail.