Um, no, they're going to improve at the rate of battery improvements. Whether or not that's faster or slower than you suggest, time will tell, but it is a high-priority development right now.
Yet, be able to cry on cue or throw a ball and you'll never have financial issues ever again.
The reason you never have financial issues again is that you're doing something that is making people sit up and spend money on it. You personally, as a TV watcher or a video streamer or a movie renter or whatever, have contributed to this and for some reason you didn't have an issue with it then.
Oh right. Because voice-over requires so much "smart"s. And talent?
Yes, it does. It doesn't matter what luck you get, being able to 'be' a character requires talent. If you don't believe me why don't you get on a microphone and do a passable impression of Mr. Burns reading a scene from Hamlet. There might be 14 million in it for you!
That we even pay such stupid amounts of money for such stupid "work" is itself retarded. We are a fucked up society.
Actually what society is showing is that they value uniqueness. That isn't fucked up at all. In fact, that can work to your benefit... if you actually try.
What makes me mad in this case is that the pilot is ruining it for everyone else.
I'm somewhere between agreeing with you and believing it was inevitable. Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads. I agree his stunt will result in heavy-handedness. Where I'm not sure I agree about is if a time-traveler plucked this stunt out of history if, ten years later, we'd be in a spot that is, at all, any different.
Really? That's it? The idea that the inferior watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea, it's more difficult and, if you're carrying something, less convenient.
Heh. You're the first person I've talked to that complained about smart watches using both hands. Kudos to that. Anyway, this is exactly the benefit the watches bring and a growing number of people like it.
In case you haven't noticed we already have plenty of watches with browsers and it is a massive "do not want" from consumers. RSS headlines? Sure. Reading articles? Nope.
No, we really don't have it, yet. We're still at the vga phone camera stage. As for the massive "do not want' from consumers, you're saying that after Apple sold over a million Apple Watches.
...but if you're going to take the time to read the article associated with the RSS feed then you're going to do the trivial task of taking your phone to do so given the advantages the phone has over the watch.
If all I have to do is scroll a little further, I won't bother getting the phone out.
So your "benefit" is that you don't have to reach into your pocket and you feel that outweighs all the negatives?
All of them? No. A lot of them? Oh, yes. Actually the Pebble Watch has been a great purchase for me, my phone spends a lot more time in my pocket. I want more from it.
I said you were evangelizing the browser-on-watch concept, how do you misinterpret that to me assuming your motives?
For starters: No, I did not evangelize browser-on-watch. There's your misinterpretation right there. What I am telling you about, for the second time, is objectivity. You seriously just said something as stupid as "... watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea." Why is that stupid? You've never tried it. You don't know... which in and of itself isn't so bad, but you're arguing with somebody who does know. It's not helping you. You've already learned this lesson, but here we are, 2015, and you're doing it again.
As we have seen information becoming more rich in content and the bandwidth of mobile devices increasing we have seen screen sizes increase to accommodate that richness, not a reduction in the information to fit smaller screens.
This is plainly untrue. Not only do we have the "Reader" mode that digests the information but we've lived in the RSS age for quite a while now. We haven't even started discussing the running of apps designed for the watch. We're well beyond WAP, as you've mentioned later in your post, and it's in a perfect place to create a browsing experience for something like the Apple Watch. Even Samsung has added a wheel to their lineup for the same purpose.
The Apple Watch requires you to carry your iPhone for internet access! Which means in this case you do have the better experience with you right in your pocket!
I bolded the operative part of your statement. To answer an earlier comment you made: Plenty of people made the case that cell phones were a terrible form factor for browsing the net.
Even though that requirement didn't exist for cell phone cameras they still didn't outpace traditional point-and-shoot cameras until their quality was close to parity, we all know this already.
Outpacing anything is not a factor in this conversation. Nobody's telling you to throw your phone away.
Where did I assume your motives? I didn't suggest any motivation whatsoever, in fact I asked what your motives were.
You said I was evangelizing the watch. Your question was built from that premise. Browsing on the watch could turn out to be totally useless. Nothing I've said actually discounts that possibility because I'm saying, instead, that you can't tell that from here. I can invent reasons, but that's incongruous to the point I've been making.
And they have also told us that those assumptions can be right, so the question to you is: why do you believe these assumptions to be wrong?
I don't believe they're wrong, I just don't believe they're right. Now if you're really asking why I'm receptive to the idea it's because I have a Pebble Watch that, in short, is a second monitor for my phone. I have plenty of cases where it's more useful to get information on that display than to remove my phone from my pocket. If you'd like to know more about that I'd be happy to share that info with you.
And I can pose the irrefutable counter-argument that there is no reason to think it will happen...
Lots of people thought that their reasoning for cell phones not having cameras was irrefutable, too. It's not. Just being proven wrong due to lack of foresight is reason enough. The real irrefutable question is: "Do modern smartwatches want to part you from your money?" I'm not being snarky, that's perfectly fine.
So again, what is the advantage that will attract users? Why would somebody use the browser on the watch instead of the browser of the smartphone in their pocket?
You can reach your wrist quicker than dig into your pocket. I get headlines on my Pebble Watch, for example. I'd love to be able to scroll down and finish the story since I'm already there.
Whereas today the browsing experience on an tablet/smartphone is pretty much on par with what you get on a desktop/laptop.
Right. Stop and think for a minute about why that happened.
No it was because those cameras were of such poor quality as to be almost useless
No it wasn't. The fact even the earliest shittiest cell phone camera was better than not having a camera at all. The logic was that everybody'd start carrying their camera with them at all times. That was flawed logic on day one.
You are trying really hard to evangelize this, so what is the advantage that will attract users
That is a disingenuous assumption of my motives. If I'm evangelizing anything it's objectivity. History has already told you that your assumptions can easily be wrong, this case is no different. Tech gets better, software gets better, and we live in an age where information is being digested to suit your needs. There's no reason to think it won't happen.
That says more about you than it does about the engineer. Assuming you're an engineer of any sort you've just displayed a lack of objectivity when solving a problem.
I'm not sure when this 'plummeting usage' happened or even if it exists, but news events do lead to a good deal more chatter. FB users basically told Zuckerberg they want this.
Religion is outdated nonsense that causes wars and suffering.
Somebody who hates science could say make a similar claim and point at the atomic bomb as proof. If you see the problem with that anti-science guy's statement, then you see the problem with yours.
There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.
Cannot be measured, is invisible to everything....How do you know it exists? What would ever lead you to that conclusion (that it exists/has existed?) without being insane?
3D doesn't mean 'suspended disbelief', he's saying a lot of 3D graphics out there are just plain shit because no particular talent is being used to define their style. And he's right! You're probably having a hard time realizing that because this generation of gaming has provided a bunch of tools to make everything look bumpy. You haven't seen much of that before so just seeing the effect looks 'cool'. In a few years from now you're gonna say 'huh, not as nice as I remembered'. Right now you're being impressed by gimmicks.
Slashdot Mirror
Voice actors read from a script.
Voice actors convey a character to your ears via lines from a script. If you don't believe me then go watch some fan films.
Yes. Voice synthesis does not an actor make.
Um, no, they're going to improve at the rate of battery improvements. Whether or not that's faster or slower than you suggest, time will tell, but it is a high-priority development right now.
Yet, be able to cry on cue or throw a ball and you'll never have financial issues ever again.
The reason you never have financial issues again is that you're doing something that is making people sit up and spend money on it. You personally, as a TV watcher or a video streamer or a movie renter or whatever, have contributed to this and for some reason you didn't have an issue with it then.
I'm not really sure what you're bitching about.
Oh right. Because voice-over requires so much "smart"s. And talent?
Yes, it does. It doesn't matter what luck you get, being able to 'be' a character requires talent. If you don't believe me why don't you get on a microphone and do a passable impression of Mr. Burns reading a scene from Hamlet. There might be 14 million in it for you!
That we even pay such stupid amounts of money for such stupid "work" is itself retarded. We are a fucked up society.
Actually what society is showing is that they value uniqueness. That isn't fucked up at all. In fact, that can work to your benefit... if you actually try.
for 14mil they can get 100 people to replace him... in about 30seconds
Except that he's a talented voice actor and not a software engineer.
What makes me mad in this case is that the pilot is ruining it for everyone else.
I'm somewhere between agreeing with you and believing it was inevitable. Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads. I agree his stunt will result in heavy-handedness. Where I'm not sure I agree about is if a time-traveler plucked this stunt out of history if, ten years later, we'd be in a spot that is, at all, any different.
Really? That's it? The idea that the inferior watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea, it's more difficult and, if you're carrying something, less convenient.
Heh. You're the first person I've talked to that complained about smart watches using both hands. Kudos to that. Anyway, this is exactly the benefit the watches bring and a growing number of people like it.
In case you haven't noticed we already have plenty of watches with browsers and it is a massive "do not want" from consumers. RSS headlines? Sure. Reading articles? Nope.
No, we really don't have it, yet. We're still at the vga phone camera stage. As for the massive "do not want' from consumers, you're saying that after Apple sold over a million Apple Watches.
...but if you're going to take the time to read the article associated with the RSS feed then you're going to do the trivial task of taking your phone to do so given the advantages the phone has over the watch.
If all I have to do is scroll a little further, I won't bother getting the phone out.
So your "benefit" is that you don't have to reach into your pocket and you feel that outweighs all the negatives?
All of them? No. A lot of them? Oh, yes. Actually the Pebble Watch has been a great purchase for me, my phone spends a lot more time in my pocket. I want more from it.
I said you were evangelizing the browser-on-watch concept, how do you misinterpret that to me assuming your motives?
For starters: No, I did not evangelize browser-on-watch. There's your misinterpretation right there. What I am telling you about, for the second time, is objectivity. You seriously just said something as stupid as "... watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea." Why is that stupid? You've never tried it. You don't know... which in and of itself isn't so bad, but you're arguing with somebody who does know. It's not helping you. You've already learned this lesson, but here we are, 2015, and you're doing it again.
Thank you for supporting my post by missing the point of it.
As we have seen information becoming more rich in content and the bandwidth of mobile devices increasing we have seen screen sizes increase to accommodate that richness, not a reduction in the information to fit smaller screens.
This is plainly untrue. Not only do we have the "Reader" mode that digests the information but we've lived in the RSS age for quite a while now. We haven't even started discussing the running of apps designed for the watch. We're well beyond WAP, as you've mentioned later in your post, and it's in a perfect place to create a browsing experience for something like the Apple Watch. Even Samsung has added a wheel to their lineup for the same purpose.
The Apple Watch requires you to carry your iPhone for internet access! Which means in this case you do have the better experience with you right in your pocket!
I bolded the operative part of your statement. To answer an earlier comment you made: Plenty of people made the case that cell phones were a terrible form factor for browsing the net.
Even though that requirement didn't exist for cell phone cameras they still didn't outpace traditional point-and-shoot cameras until their quality was close to parity, we all know this already.
Outpacing anything is not a factor in this conversation. Nobody's telling you to throw your phone away.
Where did I assume your motives? I didn't suggest any motivation whatsoever, in fact I asked what your motives were.
You said I was evangelizing the watch. Your question was built from that premise. Browsing on the watch could turn out to be totally useless. Nothing I've said actually discounts that possibility because I'm saying, instead, that you can't tell that from here. I can invent reasons, but that's incongruous to the point I've been making.
And they have also told us that those assumptions can be right, so the question to you is: why do you believe these assumptions to be wrong?
I don't believe they're wrong, I just don't believe they're right. Now if you're really asking why I'm receptive to the idea it's because I have a Pebble Watch that, in short, is a second monitor for my phone. I have plenty of cases where it's more useful to get information on that display than to remove my phone from my pocket. If you'd like to know more about that I'd be happy to share that info with you.
And I can pose the irrefutable counter-argument that there is no reason to think it will happen...
Lots of people thought that their reasoning for cell phones not having cameras was irrefutable, too. It's not. Just being proven wrong due to lack of foresight is reason enough. The real irrefutable question is: "Do modern smartwatches want to part you from your money?" I'm not being snarky, that's perfectly fine.
So again, what is the advantage that will attract users? Why would somebody use the browser on the watch instead of the browser of the smartphone in their pocket?
You can reach your wrist quicker than dig into your pocket. I get headlines on my Pebble Watch, for example. I'd love to be able to scroll down and finish the story since I'm already there.
Whereas today the browsing experience on an tablet/smartphone is pretty much on par with what you get on a desktop/laptop.
Right. Stop and think for a minute about why that happened.
No it was because those cameras were of such poor quality as to be almost useless
No it wasn't. The fact even the earliest shittiest cell phone camera was better than not having a camera at all. The logic was that everybody'd start carrying their camera with them at all times. That was flawed logic on day one.
You are trying really hard to evangelize this, so what is the advantage that will attract users
That is a disingenuous assumption of my motives. If I'm evangelizing anything it's objectivity. History has already told you that your assumptions can easily be wrong, this case is no different. Tech gets better, software gets better, and we live in an age where information is being digested to suit your needs. There's no reason to think it won't happen.
That says more about you than it does about the engineer. Assuming you're an engineer of any sort you've just displayed a lack of objectivity when solving a problem.
Yes, you're right. With more effort he can do the same thing. Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm not sure when this 'plummeting usage' happened or even if it exists, but news events do lead to a good deal more chatter. FB users basically told Zuckerberg they want this.
But.. but.. but... iIsaw somebody from AOL say ROFLMFAO a buncha times on IRC, that means AOL'ers are st00pid!!!
Does Using an AOL Email Address Suggest You're a Tech Dinosaur?
Yes, if you're an asshole. "If it ain't broken don't fix it" only applies to popular things.
Religion is outdated nonsense that causes wars and suffering.
Somebody who hates science could say make a similar claim and point at the atomic bomb as proof. If you see the problem with that anti-science guy's statement, then you see the problem with yours.
There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.
Cannot be measured, is invisible to everything....How do you know it exists? What would ever lead you to that conclusion (that it exists/has existed?) without being insane?
You rebutted a statement he didn't make.
Belief in religion is belief in magic, hence anti-science. That's causation right there.
Oh the irony of that statement.
3D doesn't mean 'suspended disbelief', he's saying a lot of 3D graphics out there are just plain shit because no particular talent is being used to define their style. And he's right! You're probably having a hard time realizing that because this generation of gaming has provided a bunch of tools to make everything look bumpy. You haven't seen much of that before so just seeing the effect looks 'cool'. In a few years from now you're gonna say 'huh, not as nice as I remembered'. Right now you're being impressed by gimmicks.
Slashdot should deal with facts, not speculative breaking news.
Heh. You do know this site is ad-supported, right?
My news feed has been all about Greece making payments on the bailout in order to regain confidence.
You must be talking about our colleagues to the south ... which yeah we kinda wish they'd secede.
not bothering to look up basic facts is just a mistake?
On this site I am not at all surprised you can post at +2.
You've been suffering for more than a decade. You poor soul.
Were you interested in every single other story on the front page? No? Then kindly shut the fuck up.