Are you actually having a fully functional standby on your netbook? Which OS? The only laptop I've ever had that had a standby that worked for more than a few weeks after purchase was my Mac. In Windows land it's been my experience that you're risking having to do a full reboot every time yous standby.
> A netbook can be the users only computer, an iPad can't.
^ I don't understand this statement. I haven't synced my iPhone in ages, but I've installed plenty of things on it. The main reason I don't have a netbook right now is because my iPhone is doing 90% of the work I'd use a netbook for. A bigger one would be nice. (Although it's not nice enough yet for me to drop $500 on it.)
You know I think my reply sounds snippier than I intended. My apologies, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I just wrote that in a little too much of a hurry.
If it helps to know, I'm mildly curious about the iPad, but I'm not chomping at the bit to buy one.
I didn't say it was smaller, I said it was more portable. A netbook you have to unfold, set on a surface, then get the mouse out. "Deploy" is a better word. A tablet, in general I mean not just the iPad, has a better form factor for doing things like looking up information or doing small chunks of data entry. A netbook is lousy at this. When you do want to web browse or take notes or show a video to somebody, you take it out, hit the button, and you're already moving. Whether it satisfies you or not, a netbook trying to run a desktop OS is shooting itself in the foot in this regard.
Additionally, the iPad is almost all screen, so your PDF viewing would actually be a better experience. You're right that it's not at versatile at being 'creative', but I think you give too much credit to netbooks for this. I mean, really, are you going to do concept paintings on one? No. I've seen a number of netbook users over the last year or two and it's always about instant messaging, email, or hulu. The small screen and awkward configuration limit it to little more than that unless you like writing code on the bus.
There are benefits to it. Anybody with an iPhone or an iPod Touch can see the potential. Whether or not they back it up with money, well who knows. I don't see it being anywhere near as successful as its cousins. Then again, I'd much rather have one of those than a netbook. (I'd rather have a 17" laptop than both of them combined.) It is designed to do a few things well, and if those are things you value, you're good. A netbook does a lot of things... poorly. It might be adequate in some cases, but a lot of times it becomes a 'tertiary' computer in a household that can blow $400 in case they benefit a little from it. Sounds familiar, mm?
Funny thing is, the lowest-priced entry-level iPad would be more useful to me than a typical netbook. Heh.
Yeah it's really an issue of what it does do, not what it doesn't do. It has the iPhone's browser, instant on, light-weight, and long battery life. That has some value with me. It plays QTs, which would be helpful at work. That has some value with me. I don't know if it's worth $500 to me, but we'll see when I get to play with one.
It not having the ability to store cold beers in it doesn't lower it's value. It just doesn't raise it. The 'worth-getting' price goes up when it supports Flash, for example. If it had an SD slot, the worth-getting price would go up further. If it had a networking feature that'd grab stuff like JPGs and QTs off the network, the worth-getting price would go up. They haven't quite sold me yet, but my curiosity is piqued.
I agree with that. I just don't see it as a total deal-breaker, just makes its perceived cost value lower to me.
On the topic of Flash, though, I've had my iPhone for over a year. No Flash. I thoguht I'd hate that but I'm not actively missing it. (Well occasionally I wish I could get Hulu on it.) It's one of those things where the theory of it sounds really bad but in reality doesn't line up. Unfortunately, this is why the fanboys and haters get lit up so easily. The ones with practical experience are arguing with the ones that don't have it, but think they're right anyway because of their knowledge of blinkie things. Funny thing is, I have seen a phone with Flash and I watched its battery flatten out right before my eyes.
It's for this reason I'm hesitant to proclaim how useless something is for lack of a feature. I did that with both Linux and OSX and only exposed my ignorance.
Are they yelling or do you just notice them more because you see the phone?
I ask because I'm guilty of this. I notice people tapping at their phones, quietly I might add, and the judgements start. This is not something I'm proud of, but it does make me think twice before singling people out.
I agree, it's an arms race. Technology gets better, they get creative. The 'root economic problem' is no better. You can't stop people wanting to make money. So long as you can send messages to anybody for absurdly cheap, people will pay to get their message out. Law enforcement can't do shit about that. Spammers get paid regardless of the success of the product. Email needs to flow freely.
Either email has to fundamentally change on a technical level to defeat spam or 6 billion people need their brain re-wired.
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".
There is always a demand to get a message out to n% of x hundred thousand people for cheap. You can't realistically stop that. What you can realistically do is increase the cost of getting those messages out. Treating spam as simply an economic problem won't work.
That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"
A quintillion? Really? With that much energy, do you really need a particle accelerator? I mean, couldn't I risk creating a black-hole by starting my car with a quintillion times more LHC energy?
If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?
Do you own the company you work for? In which case are you arguing that your children shouldn't inherit it when you die?
The author owns the work that's being published. You don't own what you're working on for your 'boss'. So you're right, writers shouldn't be treated any different. Their estate should continue to earn their share of the money coming in from the work. Writer != Office Peon.
Oh I dunno.. LCARS didn't support overlapping windows and abbreviated the heck out of everything. Posting on Slashdot with LCARS would have been a bit of a learning curve. "To reply, press the R132 button!"
Still, though, the auto-scrolling feature is nice.
The problem is you end up spending 10 seconds explaining to the audience what 2 seconds of fictional computer display does. Then you end up with something like Sigourney Weaver's character on Galaxy Quest. It doesn't make the movie any more entertaining just like turning the sound off in space scenes doesn't automatically make it better. All it buys you is one less nitpick.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you actually having a fully functional standby on your netbook? Which OS? The only laptop I've ever had that had a standby that worked for more than a few weeks after purchase was my Mac. In Windows land it's been my experience that you're risking having to do a full reboot every time yous standby.
> A netbook can be the users only computer, an iPad can't.
^ I don't understand this statement. I haven't synced my iPhone in ages, but I've installed plenty of things on it. The main reason I don't have a netbook right now is because my iPhone is doing 90% of the work I'd use a netbook for. A bigger one would be nice. (Although it's not nice enough yet for me to drop $500 on it.)
You know I think my reply sounds snippier than I intended. My apologies, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I just wrote that in a little too much of a hurry.
If it helps to know, I'm mildly curious about the iPad, but I'm not chomping at the bit to buy one.
I didn't say it was smaller, I said it was more portable. A netbook you have to unfold, set on a surface, then get the mouse out. "Deploy" is a better word. A tablet, in general I mean not just the iPad, has a better form factor for doing things like looking up information or doing small chunks of data entry. A netbook is lousy at this. When you do want to web browse or take notes or show a video to somebody, you take it out, hit the button, and you're already moving. Whether it satisfies you or not, a netbook trying to run a desktop OS is shooting itself in the foot in this regard.
Additionally, the iPad is almost all screen, so your PDF viewing would actually be a better experience. You're right that it's not at versatile at being 'creative', but I think you give too much credit to netbooks for this. I mean, really, are you going to do concept paintings on one? No. I've seen a number of netbook users over the last year or two and it's always about instant messaging, email, or hulu. The small screen and awkward configuration limit it to little more than that unless you like writing code on the bus.
There are benefits to it. Anybody with an iPhone or an iPod Touch can see the potential. Whether or not they back it up with money, well who knows. I don't see it being anywhere near as successful as its cousins. Then again, I'd much rather have one of those than a netbook. (I'd rather have a 17" laptop than both of them combined.) It is designed to do a few things well, and if those are things you value, you're good. A netbook does a lot of things... poorly. It might be adequate in some cases, but a lot of times it becomes a 'tertiary' computer in a household that can blow $400 in case they benefit a little from it. Sounds familiar, mm?
Funny thing is, the lowest-priced entry-level iPad would be more useful to me than a typical netbook. Heh.
- It's more portable.
- It lasts longer on a charge.
- It gets you to the point (i.e. web browsing) faster than a netbook does.
Plausible, but not guaranteed to succeed or fail.
Seems the more healthy and well off we are, the less kids we have.
That's true. As soon as I could afford broadband my chances of having kids went waaay down.
Oh brother. Even Krusty the Klown would have groaned at telling that joke and immediately lit a cigarette.
Yeah it's really an issue of what it does do, not what it doesn't do. It has the iPhone's browser, instant on, light-weight, and long battery life. That has some value with me. It plays QTs, which would be helpful at work. That has some value with me. I don't know if it's worth $500 to me, but we'll see when I get to play with one.
It not having the ability to store cold beers in it doesn't lower it's value. It just doesn't raise it. The 'worth-getting' price goes up when it supports Flash, for example. If it had an SD slot, the worth-getting price would go up further. If it had a networking feature that'd grab stuff like JPGs and QTs off the network, the worth-getting price would go up. They haven't quite sold me yet, but my curiosity is piqued.
I agree with that. I just don't see it as a total deal-breaker, just makes its perceived cost value lower to me.
On the topic of Flash, though, I've had my iPhone for over a year. No Flash. I thoguht I'd hate that but I'm not actively missing it. (Well occasionally I wish I could get Hulu on it.) It's one of those things where the theory of it sounds really bad but in reality doesn't line up. Unfortunately, this is why the fanboys and haters get lit up so easily. The ones with practical experience are arguing with the ones that don't have it, but think they're right anyway because of their knowledge of blinkie things. Funny thing is, I have seen a phone with Flash and I watched its battery flatten out right before my eyes.
It's for this reason I'm hesitant to proclaim how useless something is for lack of a feature. I did that with both Linux and OSX and only exposed my ignorance.
In his defense, Gizmodo reported that it doesn't have 3G. Unfortunately hindsight will ram his karma into the ground.
So let me get this straight: No one is complaining about this, except for the people who are?
He's saying that nobody who knows better is bitching about it.
It's like me bitching about how I won't use Linux because it doesn't have any useful apps for me. Linux users would think I'm a tard.
The A4 processor. Sounds like a sheet of paper!
Yes. Whether that is a weakness or a strength depends on what you want, though. I personally would rather have the tablet than an a Macbook Air.
How do you entice registrars to spend the energy to act on this?
How do you get every registrar to do that?
Are they yelling or do you just notice them more because you see the phone?
I ask because I'm guilty of this. I notice people tapping at their phones, quietly I might add, and the judgements start. This is not something I'm proud of, but it does make me think twice before singling people out.
I just tell people I'm talking to Al. Their reaction is fun whether they get it or not.
That's an interesting thought. But how would they distinguish a domain from a spam domain, and what would be the registrar's incentive to police that?
I agree, it's an arms race. Technology gets better, they get creative. The 'root economic problem' is no better. You can't stop people wanting to make money. So long as you can send messages to anybody for absurdly cheap, people will pay to get their message out. Law enforcement can't do shit about that. Spammers get paid regardless of the success of the product. Email needs to flow freely.
Either email has to fundamentally change on a technical level to defeat spam or 6 billion people need their brain re-wired.
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".
There is always a demand to get a message out to n% of x hundred thousand people for cheap. You can't realistically stop that. What you can realistically do is increase the cost of getting those messages out. Treating spam as simply an economic problem won't work.
That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"
A quintillion? Really? With that much energy, do you really need a particle accelerator? I mean, couldn't I risk creating a black-hole by starting my car with a quintillion times more LHC energy?
If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?
Do you own the company you work for? In which case are you arguing that your children shouldn't inherit it when you die?
The author owns the work that's being published. You don't own what you're working on for your 'boss'. So you're right, writers shouldn't be treated any different. Their estate should continue to earn their share of the money coming in from the work. Writer != Office Peon.
You'd rather the big corps get the millions instead of the family of the people that created it?
If you don't like what Google is doing to "your property", then you send them a "Cease and Desist" letter.
While Google == 1 your post is reasonable. When 100 companies are doing it, power to the corps.
Oh I dunno.. LCARS didn't support overlapping windows and abbreviated the heck out of everything. Posting on Slashdot with LCARS would have been a bit of a learning curve. "To reply, press the R132 button!"
Still, though, the auto-scrolling feature is nice.
I wish you both the best.
The problem is you end up spending 10 seconds explaining to the audience what 2 seconds of fictional computer display does. Then you end up with something like Sigourney Weaver's character on Galaxy Quest. It doesn't make the movie any more entertaining just like turning the sound off in space scenes doesn't automatically make it better. All it buys you is one less nitpick.