Complaining about the lack of a physical keyboard on the iPad is like complaining about the lack of a keyboard on a desktop PC. All you need to do is plug one in or pair one via Bluetooth
True, I wasn't actually complaining about the lack of a built-in keyboard - I was acknowledging that if your idea of "creation" requires a keyboard for heavy text entry, you have to basically make your ipad into a small laptop by bringing a keyboard along.
Once again, I can't disagree that *that* use case would be more suited to a tablet or a keyboard.
But there are lots of things where input is not text-based (drawing apps, music/mixer apps, especially) that are perfectly well-suited for a touchscreen device like the ipad.
I'm not disputing that some other devices may be just as good (or even better) for some purposes. I'm disputing the "it's only for consumption" meme, because it's a fallacy.
Google is smart enough to not piss them off when they are already being watched for doing just what your suggesting. As for Microsoft, they already tried to abuse their power and learnt the hard way not to do it, they aren't going to turn around and re-do the same mistake.
I see - any counterexample will be met with "Of course there's an explanation, no matter how ridiculous a stretch it is - Apple is the only bad company, everybody else is nice."
Then why aren't we all using Kin phones & Courier tablets? Why did those flame out spectacularly? Microsoft certainly has the money and power to market aggressively, and they've certainly shown that they're not shy about abusing power when they have it. Google certainly could have pushed the Nexus One much harder - for fuck's sake, they OWN online advertising, they are an ADVERTISING company - who has more power in that space than Google?
You need to understand how things like the human mind work and how trust is equaled to visibility.
And if all these companies know it, please explain why Apple is the only one that seems to do it effectively? Because I'm sorry, but MSFT and GOOG both have deep enough pockets that they could easily match Apple's marketing. Why aren't we all using Nexus Ones and Zunes? Or is it just you, the random anonymous guy on Slashdot, and Apple who realizes this, and every other company competing with Apple is braindead?
Your fervent desire to hate Apple because "all they do is market" doesn't make that premise true.
Should you not be a bit embarrassed about your procedure and the carelessness in which you put lives in the hands of your retarded 19 year old nephew? Do you now expect that this is the first and only instance of the information falling in the wrong hands? Do you consider yourself blameless?
You may have noticed that I never said that the military is without any blame or responsibility for the data being stolen. So let's affirm right now that yes, the military is at least partially to blame for inadequate data security, though I fail to see how any amount of data security truly prevents a "social engineering" sort of breach like this - the kid being accused of the leaks is an intelligence analyst, who had access to this data as part of his job - if he hadn't been allowed access to it, he probably wouldn't have been able to do his job.
Does this, in your opinion, mean that Mr. Assange does not also share responsibility for publishing names of informants who will likely be targeted by the Taliban now? If so, what is the chain of logic by which you say that the man publishing these details is not responsible at least in part for the fact that this data will be used to harm the people he has named?
The military is the victim of the theft of that information.
The person being killed as a result of this information being divulged is not Mr. Assange - it could conceivably be military personnel or informants, though.
So what we're saying here is that it's completely the military's fault that someone stole this data, and Mr. Assange, who is publishing the data without suitable redaction, is completely without responsibility for anything that results from his receiving the data after it was stolen, and then publishing it without subjecting it to rigorous editorial review to remove personally identifiable details.
Does this seem reasonable to you? If so, please explain how the person publishing the specific personal details of informants when that data would not otherwise be available is somehow blameless in this equation?
1) "those who failed to contain that information" = the military, correct? 2) "the people whose data was stolen" = the military, correct? 3) That data names people who will (if Taliban statements are to be believed) be harmed as a result of this information being made public, correct? 4) Mr. Assange's organization is the group making this information publicly available without proper redaction of informant names, correct?
Please describe for me in detail which of these statements is incorrect & why, should you disagree with any of them.
If you *do* agree with all 4 of those statements - by what stretch of logic do Mr. Assange (and Wikileaks) bear no responsibility for the results of publishing details about the names & locations of informants?
What is being asserted here is that somehow, the military bears all the blame for this data being made public, and that Wikileaks is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or unethical behavior.
Because all of the evidence shows that at least for some applications (some video applications, music - mixers, synthesizer-style instruments - and art/sketching/drawing), it's just as capable as a desktop system with a 27" screen, keyboard, mouse, quad-core processors, and 16gb of ram, and in fact, it may even be a more natural interface than the tradition mouse & keyboard for some of these applications.
This is the puzzling thing - conventional wisdom seems to have decided that "creating anything" with an ipad is impossible, or even too difficult to be worth it. In point of fact, it's quite suitable for both consumption and creation - unless you define "creation" so narrowly as to be strictly text-entry into a word processing program.
That they stole off their competitors. OSX = BSD + Mach kernal. iPod = mp3 players before it. iPhone = touch screen Palm devices that have been around since the late 90's. iPad = Android tablets that have been around for quite some time. Some were released in September of last year in North America, and this doesn't consider the cheaper made Chinese ones.
What you are describing is *features*, not *design*. I never said that Apple was the most innovative company that came up with all their ideas with no outside influence whatsoever. I said they have a history of thoughtful design: meaning, "they take the features they believe make sense given the market, they package them together to support those features well, and then they build an attractive and aesthetically pleasant "package" for those features."
Design isn't simply "Feature X + Featurey Y + a pinch of Feature Z." It's about how the product works, feels, looks, and how the user interacts with it. If Mac OS X existed with all the features before Apple came along, why are they the only ones who've been able to turn it into a commercially viable desktop? If MP3 players had all the features that ipods had before Apple entered the market, why do they more or less own that market? If the iphone is just a recycled touch screen palm pilot, why did Palm pretty much have to offer itself up as a fire sale bargain while Apple is printing money with the same device? If Android tablets are functionally equivalent to iPads, why aren't they eating the iPad's lunch, given that they had first mover advantage?
What your argument fails to account for is that Apple *is* adding something to the package of features you claim already existed. If they were not, they would not own the market (in the case of MP3 players), or be largely setting the direction in markets they've recently entered (smart phones, tablet computers) - take a look at the Android phone units before the iPhone was released, and try to tell me that the Android smartphone manufacturers aren't being heavily influenced by Apple's designs.
iPhone never was able to beat Blackberry and has now been taken over by Android.
Yes, I'm amazed at how a single "current" phone model, available in ~25 countries (I believe, unless they've released in a bunch more countries in the past 2 weeks) at present (and at least in the US, and perhaps other countries, available only on a single carrier) gets beaten by a whole category of phones sold by just about every carrier around the world. I'm shocked at these sales results. Never mind that just about every single recent android smartphone has looked pretty much like an iPhone, and has primarily differentiated itself based on... what? "not being an iphone"? "being available on a carrier that's not ATT"? "A few extra ghz on a processor, or mb of ram and storage?" Oh wait, the Android Marketplace? Oh no that's right - that you don't HAVE to use the Android Marketplace if you don't want to. This is huge, wait 'till the people hear about it!
Exactly - it's not going to fill every "creation" niche out there, but there are places where it is an excellent addition to the toolkit.
I think we'll probably see some interesting updates in version 2 or 3 of the ipad, but I think you might see them pushing more for bluetooth or wifi/bonjour connectivity to other devices. Apple seems to hate putting ports on their devices... I don't think we're likely to see 4 mini-usb ports suddenly appear in the iPad 2.
Perhaps - the point is that the iPad *can* be used for more "creation" than simply "typing stuff into a text editor." The "it's for consumption only" meme is a little ridiculous because it assumes that "creation" requires a keyboard, and in some cases, that's simply not true.
I noticed that you left off the last part of my post:
[...] for normal usage patterns, despite having fewer "and the kitchen sink" features.
It's almost like you're trying to distort what I said to mean something I didn't say, so you can congratulate yourself on how clever you are for making a trite counterpoint!
Apple does enjoy certain marketing advantages (that they've earned to a degree) that others don't have.
Yes, like a history of thoughtful design and a slew of devices that work much better than their competitors for normal usage patterns, despite having fewer "and the kitchen sink" features.
Have you seen some of the art (and, for that matter, heard some of the music) that people have created on the ipad? It sucks for "creating content" in the "i have to type on a keyboard" sense, but it's actually pretty effective when you don't need a full keyboard to create something.
For some things, a keyboard will probably always be better. For others, the keyboard is really kind of pointless, and a tablet with no keyboard works surprisingly well.
Do you even bother to read the context of ANY post you respond to? Or do you just spout off without any knowledge of the context?
My response was a specific response to this statement:
If any lives are lost as a result of exposing this, the blame is with those who failed to contain that information, not Assange.
So Mr. Assange, by widely publicizing the names, bears no responsibility for the lives lost - it's solely the people whose data was stolen who are at fault?
I would want the NY Times to bear some responsibility for publicizing names of informants as well, if they have done so. Thankfully, they seem to have some journalistic standards.
Would you be satisfied with this response from your local police force, if your house was burglarized? "sorry, can't help you, it's your own fault for not securing things better."
Or would you perhaps instead insist that they catch and punish the guy who stole shit from your house, and then recover your stolen crap from the pawn shop, and punish the pawn shop owner if it can be proven that he knew the stuff was stolen?
Yes, I can see where you would naturally conclude that the victim of theft is to blame for the theft, given all that. After all, banks couldn't exist without robbers, either, right?
And at which point does it become "the person who stole shit's" fault that something was stolen?
That was more the point of the "awful analogy".
But I'd also point out that "receiving stolen goods" is generally a problem, legally, as well... Placing the pawn shop in a position where it may run afoul of the law and find itself having to answer some embarrassing questions.
If you are the victim of a burglary, the fault lies with you for not securing your home properly. After all, you're the one who wanted windows, doors, and other apertures to "use" the house, instead of a giant, solid block of steel and cement with no entrance or exit.
The person replying said that operational security (i.e., denying your enemy information about your troop locations, troop movements, supplies, and other capabilities) has been a fundamental tenet of good strategy during wartime since humans climbed down out of the trees and began fighting one another with pointy sticks. The less you know, the harder it is for you to anticipate the actions of your opponent, to guess what their capabilities and motivations are, and to guess where they're going to attack you next, or how they'll respond to your next attack.
Stating that this does not "make sense" or that it somehow is inapplicable just shows your tremendous naivete about anything related to military operations. Furthermore, your assertion that a web page where documents may be leaked heralds some profound change in our times also shows that naivete. Leaks during wartime have been around for almost as long as the "keep your information secret" rule. Wikileaks might make it easier to disseminate the information, but they are not doing anything new.
And for the record, I'm pro-responsible-leaking. I don't like that wikileaks rushed to publish this information and did a shitty job of redacting information that puts people at risk, but I don't fundamentally begrudge their right to report the information, so long as its done in a responsible & ethical fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
How unfortunate for you that you are wrong:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/riaa-bump/
So does that mean you're buying the products - how else have you "found, multiple times" that they are not stable or usable?
Or are you just, you know, talking out your ass because it's fun to do that when you're anonymous?
True, I wasn't actually complaining about the lack of a built-in keyboard - I was acknowledging that if your idea of "creation" requires a keyboard for heavy text entry, you have to basically make your ipad into a small laptop by bringing a keyboard along.
Once again, I can't disagree that *that* use case would be more suited to a tablet or a keyboard.
But there are lots of things where input is not text-based (drawing apps, music/mixer apps, especially) that are perfectly well-suited for a touchscreen device like the ipad.
I'm not disputing that some other devices may be just as good (or even better) for some purposes. I'm disputing the "it's only for consumption" meme, because it's a fallacy.
I see - any counterexample will be met with "Of course there's an explanation, no matter how ridiculous a stretch it is - Apple is the only bad company, everybody else is nice."
Thanks for playing, Droid fanboi.
Then why aren't we all using Kin phones & Courier tablets? Why did those flame out spectacularly? Microsoft certainly has the money and power to market aggressively, and they've certainly shown that they're not shy about abusing power when they have it. Google certainly could have pushed the Nexus One much harder - for fuck's sake, they OWN online advertising, they are an ADVERTISING company - who has more power in that space than Google?
And if all these companies know it, please explain why Apple is the only one that seems to do it effectively? Because I'm sorry, but MSFT and GOOG both have deep enough pockets that they could easily match Apple's marketing. Why aren't we all using Nexus Ones and Zunes? Or is it just you, the random anonymous guy on Slashdot, and Apple who realizes this, and every other company competing with Apple is braindead?
Your fervent desire to hate Apple because "all they do is market" doesn't make that premise true.
You may have noticed that I never said that the military is without any blame or responsibility for the data being stolen. So let's affirm right now that yes, the military is at least partially to blame for inadequate data security, though I fail to see how any amount of data security truly prevents a "social engineering" sort of breach like this - the kid being accused of the leaks is an intelligence analyst, who had access to this data as part of his job - if he hadn't been allowed access to it, he probably wouldn't have been able to do his job.
Does this, in your opinion, mean that Mr. Assange does not also share responsibility for publishing names of informants who will likely be targeted by the Taliban now? If so, what is the chain of logic by which you say that the man publishing these details is not responsible at least in part for the fact that this data will be used to harm the people he has named?
Right - Mr. Assange is divulging the information.
The military is the victim of the theft of that information.
The person being killed as a result of this information being divulged is not Mr. Assange - it could conceivably be military personnel or informants, though.
So what we're saying here is that it's completely the military's fault that someone stole this data, and Mr. Assange, who is publishing the data without suitable redaction, is completely without responsibility for anything that results from his receiving the data after it was stolen, and then publishing it without subjecting it to rigorous editorial review to remove personally identifiable details.
Does this seem reasonable to you? If so, please explain how the person publishing the specific personal details of informants when that data would not otherwise be available is somehow blameless in this equation?
Let's walk through this step by step.
1) "those who failed to contain that information" = the military, correct?
2) "the people whose data was stolen" = the military, correct?
3) That data names people who will (if Taliban statements are to be believed) be harmed as a result of this information being made public, correct?
4) Mr. Assange's organization is the group making this information publicly available without proper redaction of informant names, correct?
Please describe for me in detail which of these statements is incorrect & why, should you disagree with any of them.
If you *do* agree with all 4 of those statements - by what stretch of logic do Mr. Assange (and Wikileaks) bear no responsibility for the results of publishing details about the names & locations of informants?
What is being asserted here is that somehow, the military bears all the blame for this data being made public, and that Wikileaks is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or unethical behavior.
When you say "create things"... what do you mean?
Because all of the evidence shows that at least for some applications (some video applications, music - mixers, synthesizer-style instruments - and art/sketching/drawing), it's just as capable as a desktop system with a 27" screen, keyboard, mouse, quad-core processors, and 16gb of ram, and in fact, it may even be a more natural interface than the tradition mouse & keyboard for some of these applications.
This is the puzzling thing - conventional wisdom seems to have decided that "creating anything" with an ipad is impossible, or even too difficult to be worth it. In point of fact, it's quite suitable for both consumption and creation - unless you define "creation" so narrowly as to be strictly text-entry into a word processing program.
What you are describing is *features*, not *design*. I never said that Apple was the most innovative company that came up with all their ideas with no outside influence whatsoever. I said they have a history of thoughtful design: meaning, "they take the features they believe make sense given the market, they package them together to support those features well, and then they build an attractive and aesthetically pleasant "package" for those features."
Design isn't simply "Feature X + Featurey Y + a pinch of Feature Z." It's about how the product works, feels, looks, and how the user interacts with it. If Mac OS X existed with all the features before Apple came along, why are they the only ones who've been able to turn it into a commercially viable desktop? If MP3 players had all the features that ipods had before Apple entered the market, why do they more or less own that market? If the iphone is just a recycled touch screen palm pilot, why did Palm pretty much have to offer itself up as a fire sale bargain while Apple is printing money with the same device? If Android tablets are functionally equivalent to iPads, why aren't they eating the iPad's lunch, given that they had first mover advantage?
What your argument fails to account for is that Apple *is* adding something to the package of features you claim already existed. If they were not, they would not own the market (in the case of MP3 players), or be largely setting the direction in markets they've recently entered (smart phones, tablet computers) - take a look at the Android phone units before the iPhone was released, and try to tell me that the Android smartphone manufacturers aren't being heavily influenced by Apple's designs.
Yes, I'm amazed at how a single "current" phone model, available in ~25 countries (I believe, unless they've released in a bunch more countries in the past 2 weeks) at present (and at least in the US, and perhaps other countries, available only on a single carrier) gets beaten by a whole category of phones sold by just about every carrier around the world. I'm shocked at these sales results. Never mind that just about every single recent android smartphone has looked pretty much like an iPhone, and has primarily differentiated itself based on... what? "not being an iphone"? "being available on a carrier that's not ATT"? "A few extra ghz on a processor, or mb of ram and storage?" Oh wait, the Android Marketplace? Oh no that's right - that you don't HAVE to use the Android Marketplace if you don't want to. This is huge, wait 'till the people hear about it!
Exactly - it's not going to fill every "creation" niche out there, but there are places where it is an excellent addition to the toolkit.
I think we'll probably see some interesting updates in version 2 or 3 of the ipad, but I think you might see them pushing more for bluetooth or wifi/bonjour connectivity to other devices. Apple seems to hate putting ports on their devices... I don't think we're likely to see 4 mini-usb ports suddenly appear in the iPad 2.
Perhaps - the point is that the iPad *can* be used for more "creation" than simply "typing stuff into a text editor." The "it's for consumption only" meme is a little ridiculous because it assumes that "creation" requires a keyboard, and in some cases, that's simply not true.
I'm glad you agree with me, sir!
(C WUT I DID THAR?)
I noticed that you left off the last part of my post:
It's almost like you're trying to distort what I said to mean something I didn't say, so you can congratulate yourself on how clever you are for making a trite counterpoint!
Yes, like a history of thoughtful design and a slew of devices that work much better than their competitors for normal usage patterns, despite having fewer "and the kitchen sink" features.
Have you seen some of the art (and, for that matter, heard some of the music) that people have created on the ipad? It sucks for "creating content" in the "i have to type on a keyboard" sense, but it's actually pretty effective when you don't need a full keyboard to create something.
For some things, a keyboard will probably always be better. For others, the keyboard is really kind of pointless, and a tablet with no keyboard works surprisingly well.
You know, that's funny because I could swear that's exactly what you did:
Do you even bother to read the context of ANY post you respond to? Or do you just spout off without any knowledge of the context?
My response was a specific response to this statement:
So Mr. Assange, by widely publicizing the names, bears no responsibility for the lives lost - it's solely the people whose data was stolen who are at fault?
I would want the NY Times to bear some responsibility for publicizing names of informants as well, if they have done so. Thankfully, they seem to have some journalistic standards.
Would you be satisfied with this response from your local police force, if your house was burglarized? "sorry, can't help you, it's your own fault for not securing things better."
Or would you perhaps instead insist that they catch and punish the guy who stole shit from your house, and then recover your stolen crap from the pawn shop, and punish the pawn shop owner if it can be proven that he knew the stuff was stolen?
Yes, I can see where you would naturally conclude that the victim of theft is to blame for the theft, given all that. After all, banks couldn't exist without robbers, either, right?
How convenient for you that my analogy is false!
Can we agree that the burglar is responsible for the burglary, perhaps? Or is it always the victims' fault?
And at which point does it become "the person who stole shit's" fault that something was stolen?
That was more the point of the "awful analogy".
But I'd also point out that "receiving stolen goods" is generally a problem, legally, as well... Placing the pawn shop in a position where it may run afoul of the law and find itself having to answer some embarrassing questions.
If you are the victim of a burglary, the fault lies with you for not securing your home properly. After all, you're the one who wanted windows, doors, and other apertures to "use" the house, instead of a giant, solid block of steel and cement with no entrance or exit.
Do you even understand what you're yelling about?
The person replying said that operational security (i.e., denying your enemy information about your troop locations, troop movements, supplies, and other capabilities) has been a fundamental tenet of good strategy during wartime since humans climbed down out of the trees and began fighting one another with pointy sticks. The less you know, the harder it is for you to anticipate the actions of your opponent, to guess what their capabilities and motivations are, and to guess where they're going to attack you next, or how they'll respond to your next attack.
Stating that this does not "make sense" or that it somehow is inapplicable just shows your tremendous naivete about anything related to military operations. Furthermore, your assertion that a web page where documents may be leaked heralds some profound change in our times also shows that naivete. Leaks during wartime have been around for almost as long as the "keep your information secret" rule. Wikileaks might make it easier to disseminate the information, but they are not doing anything new.
And for the record, I'm pro-responsible-leaking. I don't like that wikileaks rushed to publish this information and did a shitty job of redacting information that puts people at risk, but I don't fundamentally begrudge their right to report the information, so long as its done in a responsible & ethical fashion.