The appeal is that, although it's not as good as a keyboard and mouse, it actually is much better than a keyboard and trackpad for most of things you do on the move:
Handwriting recognition is actually really pretty good in Windows 7 once you're used to it. It's nothing like speech recognition, it lets you enter in text almost as fast as you can write (in half-decent hand)
For a mouse replacement it's much better than a trackpad, where you feel like you're pushing the mouse around the screen on a postage stamp; instead you can just tap where you want to click
For notes and sketches it's even better than mouse and keyboard, and those are often the sorts of things you want to do when you're moving around
The screen being the input means it's more compact, it doesn't feel as awkward using it in a public place
You don't want to write e-mails in it and you definitely couldn't code/script with it, but for daily web-browsing/note-taking/messaging/news/drawings it's really great. (And for some people that's a big part of computing)
I think everyone will have one eventually, but they won't replace your main work PC
We're talking about having firewalls installed on desktop machines as well as having firewalls installed on server and gateway machines. Any network admin or person with an ounce of intelligence realizes this is just common sense.
You seem to be talking about having "desktop firewalls" and "server firewalls" running on the same machine, i.e. two firewall systems on the same machine, which is of course only going to lead to problems.
An important distinction to make clear because it sounded like you think desktop machines' firewalls are made redundant by server machines' firewalls, which they are definitely not.
You think Assange could actually falsify the stuff WikiLeaks has put out?
Nope. I didn't pay too much attention to wikileaks before, but given the reaction of the US government, the Afghanistan dox were authentic.
That doesn't mean the things he says to the press are true or complete.
So the stuff wikileaks puts out is true, but that doesn't mean he isn't lying about his personal life?
You must be just the kind of mindless drone this whole thing was cooked up for. Congratulations; your government really cares what your demographic thinks! (I use the term "think" loosely)
Chips aren't individual, the only way they can be made cost effective is by being mass, mass, mass produced.. They can have a unique number flashed to them though. (Small nitpick but it's important not to get the wrong idea)
Think of this service as customers who need those full capabilities subsidizing the customers who don't need them.
Whether Intel produces chips with or without these extra features it costs them the same, though it costs them more to design the features initially. This means that giving the features to everyone has to raise the price for everyone, even those who don't need the extra features.
I know making money is evil, but let's try to take a balanced view of this.
IBM's been doing that sort of thing for years. They ship you a mainframe with more processors than you ordered or a disk array with more disk than you ordered, and you can pay them to turn it on. Some companies only turn on their extra processors for a short time each year (Like end-of-year transaction processing) and if you decide you need some more space in your disk array, it's much more convenient than having to have more disks installed or buy a new disk array.
That almost sounds like.. a convenient, useful service.. But surely it can't both be good value for money, a good service, and use DRM can it?
1) That doesn't explain why it would or wouldn't surprise people.
2) Steve Jobs said that he had a great time and that he never said he wouldn't come back, he didn't actually say whether he bought ninja stars which got taken at the airport (which is a realistic, if pretty bland, story).
So, the critics need to stfu and stick with their obscure distros.
Red Hat are the main critics as far as I know, and they're not obscure or trying to look "cool". Their criticism is that they pay a lot of money to develop Linux's core software while Canonical doesn't pay nearly so much, which is true.
On the other hand you're right that Canonical have no obligation to do so, and you can make the case that Canonical are much less profitable and don't have the sorts of clients which need to kind of support provided by having programmers which work on Linuxes core software.
It's a gray area and both sides have a point. Personally I hope that Canonical becomes more successful and starts to find it useful to their business to work on Linux to a larger extent, so that no-one has to try and guilt them into doing so (which won't work if it doesn't make business sense).
I also hope Red Hat take a page from Canonical's book and make a friendlier/cleaner distribution for non-enterprise installations. (Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)
They don't try to speak directly to the president though.. Also the UK also keeps extremist Islamic preachers from entering the country too; I can see this kid isn't as much of a threat with hindsight (knowing that he is 17, as the FBI wouldn't have known at first), but if a country wants to keep out someone they don't like that's fine.
And if you don't like what Obama or anyone else is doing don't write them a threatening letter, do something constructive about it..
So WikiLeaks has received leaks from Russia and Iran which they aren't releasing, while they are releasing leaks they received from the US?
If that's true it's the first I've heard of it and I'd like to see some evidence.
Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad
on
GoDaddy Up For Auction
·
· Score: 1
Then again they do have advanced privacy protection for only $9.95 extra.
And it would have been harder to do that with better automated tools for calculating risk based on someones social position.
If you know, based on someones social network, that they're likely to be poorer than they're letting on on their credit application, or if you make that sort of information more transparent and easy to obtain, that's going to make it harder for a mortgage broker to lie to an investor.
It does have privacy implications, but there's always positive and negative outcomes of giving up privacy (that's why it's such a trend these days).
I'm not saying this would have solved the financial crisis, that would be incredible simplistic for a very complicated problem, but having more information on potential debtors would definitely have added another hurdle to making the crisis happen.
Anybody asserting that Facebook is going to be the only thing that determines whether or not you get a loan has an agenda to push.
What was that saying.. "Never blame malice when you can't rule out stupidity"?
I think this might just be people getting too worked up looking for something to pin on Facebook, rather than a calculated agenda.
Okay, then I'll get a loan from a company with decent statisticians who recognize that your friends don't determine how safe a debtor you are.
And if it turns out having friends with poor credit scores actually does indicate how safe you are (I really doubt it) then I'm all for that information being used appropriately.
Knowing the true risk of default is never a bad thing, for either party. A lot of the problems we've had since 2008 could have been avoided with better risk analysis.
You're being morally presumptuous, basically saying you want to decide whether they should work as prostitutes based on whether you think it's wrong
I'm not commenting on whether I think it's right (I'd sure never consider it a career option), but I don't think it's right to decide for other people.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what the $/performance ratio looks like, rather than $/core...
You don't want to write e-mails in it and you definitely couldn't code/script with it, but for daily web-browsing/note-taking/messaging/news/drawings it's really great. (And for some people that's a big part of computing)
I think everyone will have one eventually, but they won't replace your main work PC
We're talking about having firewalls installed on desktop machines as well as having firewalls installed on server and gateway machines. Any network admin or person with an ounce of intelligence realizes this is just common sense.
You seem to be talking about having "desktop firewalls" and "server firewalls" running on the same machine, i.e. two firewall systems on the same machine, which is of course only going to lead to problems.
An important distinction to make clear because it sounded like you think desktop machines' firewalls are made redundant by server machines' firewalls, which they are definitely not.
They still have them today, but they do it by flashing them not because every chip is unique.
You think Assange could actually falsify the stuff WikiLeaks has put out?
Nope. I didn't pay too much attention to wikileaks before, but given the reaction of the US government, the Afghanistan dox were authentic.
That doesn't mean the things he says to the press are true or complete.
So the stuff wikileaks puts out is true, but that doesn't mean he isn't lying about his personal life?
You must be just the kind of mindless drone this whole thing was cooked up for. Congratulations; your government really cares what your demographic thinks! (I use the term "think" loosely)
Is the documentation for this claim posted on wikileaks yet?
Or is he just asking us to trust him, at the same time he's telling us to not trust anyone else?
I didn't think he was asking us to do anything..
You think Assange could actually falsify the stuff WikiLeaks has put out?
That's giving a "self promoting douche" quite a bit of credit..
Chips aren't individual, the only way they can be made cost effective is by being mass, mass, mass produced.. They can have a unique number flashed to them though. (Small nitpick but it's important not to get the wrong idea)
Think of this service as customers who need those full capabilities subsidizing the customers who don't need them.
Whether Intel produces chips with or without these extra features it costs them the same, though it costs them more to design the features initially. This means that giving the features to everyone has to raise the price for everyone, even those who don't need the extra features.
I know making money is evil, but let's try to take a balanced view of this.
IBM's been doing that sort of thing for years. They ship you a mainframe with more processors than you ordered or a disk array with more disk than you ordered, and you can pay them to turn it on. Some companies only turn on their extra processors for a short time each year (Like end-of-year transaction processing) and if you decide you need some more space in your disk array, it's much more convenient than having to have more disks installed or buy a new disk array.
That almost sounds like .. a convenient, useful service.. But surely it can't both be good value for money, a good service, and use DRM can it?
I don't think the ease of takeoff a landing are a top priority for a plane which lands once every 5 years..
I wonder if souvenir throwing stars are sharpened..
1) That doesn't explain why it would or wouldn't surprise people.
2) Steve Jobs said that he had a great time and that he never said he wouldn't come back, he didn't actually say whether he bought ninja stars which got taken at the airport (which is a realistic, if pretty bland, story).
So, the critics need to stfu and stick with their obscure distros.
Red Hat are the main critics as far as I know, and they're not obscure or trying to look "cool". Their criticism is that they pay a lot of money to develop Linux's core software while Canonical doesn't pay nearly so much, which is true.
On the other hand you're right that Canonical have no obligation to do so, and you can make the case that Canonical are much less profitable and don't have the sorts of clients which need to kind of support provided by having programmers which work on Linuxes core software.
It's a gray area and both sides have a point. Personally I hope that Canonical becomes more successful and starts to find it useful to their business to work on Linux to a larger extent, so that no-one has to try and guilt them into doing so (which won't work if it doesn't make business sense).
I also hope Red Hat take a page from Canonical's book and make a friendlier/cleaner distribution for non-enterprise installations. (Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)
They don't try to speak directly to the president though.. Also the UK also keeps extremist Islamic preachers from entering the country too; I can see this kid isn't as much of a threat with hindsight (knowing that he is 17, as the FBI wouldn't have known at first), but if a country wants to keep out someone they don't like that's fine.
And if you don't like what Obama or anyone else is doing don't write them a threatening letter, do something constructive about it..
So WikiLeaks has received leaks from Russia and Iran which they aren't releasing, while they are releasing leaks they received from the US?
If that's true it's the first I've heard of it and I'd like to see some evidence.
Then again they do have advanced privacy protection for only $9.95 extra.
It's because he has an agenda. He's not about making society transparent. He's about exposing those he views as political opponents.
How about making arguments or posting citations/examples to support that statement, instead of just stating it outright?
I agree 100%.
And it would have been harder to do that with better automated tools for calculating risk based on someones social position.
If you know, based on someones social network, that they're likely to be poorer than they're letting on on their credit application, or if you make that sort of information more transparent and easy to obtain, that's going to make it harder for a mortgage broker to lie to an investor.
It does have privacy implications, but there's always positive and negative outcomes of giving up privacy (that's why it's such a trend these days).
I'm not saying this would have solved the financial crisis, that would be incredible simplistic for a very complicated problem, but having more information on potential debtors would definitely have added another hurdle to making the crisis happen.
Anybody asserting that Facebook is going to be the only thing that determines whether or not you get a loan has an agenda to push.
What was that saying.. "Never blame malice when you can't rule out stupidity"?
I think this might just be people getting too worked up looking for something to pin on Facebook, rather than a calculated agenda.
If a company rejects anyone whose name contains the letter Q that company is going to lose out on a big chunk of potential profits.
Okay, then I'll get a loan from a company with decent statisticians who recognize that your friends don't determine how safe a debtor you are.
And if it turns out having friends with poor credit scores actually does indicate how safe you are (I really doubt it) then I'm all for that information being used appropriately.
Knowing the true risk of default is never a bad thing, for either party. A lot of the problems we've had since 2008 could have been avoided with better risk analysis.
I'm not commenting on whether I think it's right (I'd sure never consider it a career option), but I don't think it's right to decide for other people.
Thanks for the clarification, for a moment I thought it was an article and my whole world turned upside down.