Sure it has an 800x480 display... but that's not quite as good as the 1024x768 display on my TC1100. My phone (Nokia 9500) has a 600x200 display AND it has a web browser+office suite AND it has 802.11b AND it has bluetooth AND it can use the T-Mobile Internet network... My phone reads email fine at home, at the office AND every point in between. If the 770 just provided a built-in phone, it would be worth it to me to lug about the extra size and weight in place of my phone. If its Bluetooth connection could interface an address book to dial a bluetooth phone... I might even buy a smaller phone and try it. As it is right now, the 770 is more of an inadequate tablet PC or like my PSP without the games (which I also refuse to lug about).
Perhaps it will appeal to those who have a modest budget who can't afford a real tablet. I don't fall in that category; if I want "computing power" on the go, I demand a little more oomph than an ARM processor, a little more resolution than 800x480, and a little more communications ability than 802.11 (as an aside: my TC1100 accepts PCMCIA cards which means I was able to purchase a Verizon broadband card that gives me 300+ kpbs to my tablet anywhere wireless broadband is supported--providing I'm willing to lug it about).
I wonder if Nokia did a market survey before they decided to build this box? If they had asked me, I would've told 'em that I want fewer boxes, not more boxes. It amazes me that a company that built its reputation building phones decides to build a half-powered, low resolution, phoneless tablet. I'd love to replace my Nokia 9500 with something that has a better OS and a more compatible browser--but the Nokia 770 will require me to carry it and a phone too. I might as well stick with my HP TC1100.
I'm sure there are people out there that said they'd love a box like this... Nokia wouldn't have built it otherwise, would they?
Sadly, the "space bending" (lensing) that you're talking about is different than the theoretical model I'm talking about. The issue isn't quite as simple since we're beings caught inside the universe trying to describe how the universe is shaped. All our instruments tend to be in the universe and thereby follows its rules. To my knowledge no one knows what causes gravitational lensing (last I heard it was supposed to be caused by passing galaxies stirring up the dark matter that seems to populate the vast gulf of space--although no one has seen it, measured it, or even come up with a successful way to test for it [my doesn't that sound familiar?]).
Sure we can devise tests to "test" the theory. Build a triangle with infinite (or near infinite) dimensions and measure the angles (seriously, this has been "proposed" once upon a time as a way of testing Reimann's manifold topology). But such intellectual exercises shouldn't count any more than I can say "I can test ID by inventing a time machine and going back in time." We are, I posit, 3-D versions of Abbot's Flatlanders.
The point, I think, with Kansas is that the schools shouldn't discount the -possibility- of intelligent design. I don't know exactly to what extent ID is covered in the science classes of Kansas, but surely we're not so insecure about the foundations of our science that we don't think it can hold up to a teacher saying "...and there may be a God involved"?
This his simply a lie, and I thought Christians were not allowed to lie. Intelligent Design doesn't study anything, ID has postulated a set of theories that are beyond study and therefore not scientific, even if, by an astonishing miracle ID was a correct description of the world, it would be wrong to teach it in science class.
There are many "scientific" postulates that for all intent and purposes are untestable. The topology of the universe, for example, is one of those. Euclid postulated that parallel lines never meet, where you can come up with nice little tidbits like the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180.... The math seems right, doesn't it?
Lobachevsky then shows a universe that mathematically makes sense for a universe to be spread across a hyperbola. And Reimann had one where the universe is inside eclpises and "manifolds"
But of course Lobachevsky and Reimann must have been a kooks since their mathematical geometries had NO parallel lines (lines meet at infinity) and the sum of the angles of a triangle is always less than (Reimann) or greater than (Lobachevsky) 180. The funny thing about these models is that the math works there too.
And all of those theories of how the universe looks make sense, but are completely unprovable, us being beings limited my lightspeed and time. Does that make Lobachevsky's and Reimann's work "unscientific"?
Someone said in an earlier post "argumentum ad ignorantiam - Fallacy of taking a statement not provably false and implying that it is therefore true." That in itself is only half of the definition:
"The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true." (skepdic.com/ignorance.html) So many posts here are concluding that ID must be false because it hasn't been proved true--and that is, I think, calling the kettle black.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it will appeal to those who have a modest budget who can't afford a real tablet. I don't fall in that category; if I want "computing power" on the go, I demand a little more oomph than an ARM processor, a little more resolution than 800x480, and a little more communications ability than 802.11 (as an aside: my TC1100 accepts PCMCIA cards which means I was able to purchase a Verizon broadband card that gives me 300+ kpbs to my tablet anywhere wireless broadband is supported--providing I'm willing to lug it about).
I'm sure there are people out there that said they'd love a box like this... Nokia wouldn't have built it otherwise, would they?
Sadly, the "space bending" (lensing) that you're talking about is different than the theoretical model I'm talking about. The issue isn't quite as simple since we're beings caught inside the universe trying to describe how the universe is shaped. All our instruments tend to be in the universe and thereby follows its rules. To my knowledge no one knows what causes gravitational lensing (last I heard it was supposed to be caused by passing galaxies stirring up the dark matter that seems to populate the vast gulf of space--although no one has seen it, measured it, or even come up with a successful way to test for it [my doesn't that sound familiar?]). Sure we can devise tests to "test" the theory. Build a triangle with infinite (or near infinite) dimensions and measure the angles (seriously, this has been "proposed" once upon a time as a way of testing Reimann's manifold topology). But such intellectual exercises shouldn't count any more than I can say "I can test ID by inventing a time machine and going back in time." We are, I posit, 3-D versions of Abbot's Flatlanders. The point, I think, with Kansas is that the schools shouldn't discount the -possibility- of intelligent design. I don't know exactly to what extent ID is covered in the science classes of Kansas, but surely we're not so insecure about the foundations of our science that we don't think it can hold up to a teacher saying "...and there may be a God involved"?