I'm sure it's going to be a Bing cloud tablet. Your interface is bing and Windows Live web apps. No way can I see Microsoft being efficient with their mobile OSes enough to accomplish a successful tablet, no matter whether it is cloud based or not.
The source for much of Linux has been reviewed thoroughly reviewed. The conclusions showed no code of consequence. Certainly nothing like the millions and millions of lines claimed by SCO.
If SCO had anything of consequence it'd have been disclosed long ago. There were plenty of depositions and it's not legal for the plaintiff to withhold evidence.
Not novel, but has to be something that someone skilled in that field would not have been able to work out as a natural progression from an existing concept.
That makes this patent application based on something obvious.
Opera 10.60 is a nice browser. They still haven't learned the benefit of add-ons such as adblock plus (making it possible), and they still can't figure out how to program for QT4. I also have long delays when trying to connect to a site. But, when the page is displayed it scrolls fast.
Let's use it so nothing else can. Oh, and btw, let's just use it to heat things up, consume more power, and make the system overall less responsive. And, let's use it just to use it because it is there.
I stated there's a point of no return. You won't see improvements after a point. That means all competitive elements will be in the software.
The hobbled OSX that Apple has implemented has serious limits. Just look at the hacked multitasking implementation as an example. Software will be the key and it won't be the App store's software. Apple will hit a brick wall if they aren't already near it.
That's patently false. First, the key to both the iPad and the Android tablets are software. The hardware from Apple won't and can't change much. The form factor and weight dictate it. That pretty much leaves software the differentiate it. Individual apps can only account for so much of that. Meaning, the end user will only install and use so many apps. Apple's UI is very restrictive. The UI from Android is very flexible, customizable and open.
The iPad technically, from a software OS/UI approach can't withstand the onslaught of years of tablet development. The UI is the one feature of the iPad that will slow the acceptance of the Android. Anyone developing a unit to compete with the iPad are likely in this for the long haul and will be spending as much time competition with Apple as Apple does with any other industry, meaning a lot of competition is going to change the face of things as time passes.
When you earn a bad rating in one area you tend to see that carried into others, such as product overall approval. So, the approval process is important to almost everyone affected from the developer to the end-user.
The results of the survey were clarified by the other data such as (most were pre-existing Apple customers, most had Macs or iPhones, most purchased the iPad near launch day, most participants were from the US). This certainly overshadowed the approval ratings.
Due to the fact that, most were early adopters owning Apple products and using it in conjunction with another Apple product, it demonstrates why certain aspects didn't hit home with them, such as the absence of flash, the walled garden, etc).
No one guarantees anyone or any business success. Clearly the money has shifted rather than been lost. There's no proof that the downloaded music didn't generate more sales (or that it would have generated a sale in the first place). There are numerous legitimate studies that show that those people that download music tend to purchase more music than those that don't download. Claims of piracy are one thing, but to claim a lost sale for every download is ridiculous.
Even the Supreme Court of the United States of America recognizes this as copyright infringement, and that it is a completely different animal than theft. Downloading music, according to the HIGHEST COURT in the USA, isn't theft, period. It's copyright infringement. The studies and reports touted by the RIAA have been debunked so many times in so many ways that even the federal agencies responsible for examining them have come out with firm affirmation that the studies are misleading exaggerations meant to manipulate law makers.
Couldn't disagree with you more. What I wrote is well documented recent history. Not many people would agree with you on the flash bit. If Apple has problems with it, then it is like Adobe said, there must be something wrong in the OS that contributes. Flash supports 75% of the video on the web.
And, as far as the journalist goes, no jury in the world would convict him as a thief, and no DA would charge him with theft, due to how bailor/bailee works in the state. He didn't steal it. He was a bailee and hence he could do what he wanted with it. Theft also implies that an item was taken with malice with the intent to permanently deny the owner possession. Good luck getting that past a jury.
You have to be kidding. Over the past two years they have done nothing but erode trust. It started when they removed DRM from itunes but started inserting customer information into the downloaded files (and they did this without informing the customer). Then there are the slew of things that they have done to cripple their competitors with anti-competitive measures, have dictated what we as the end user should and should not be able to do with the devices we own. They began this by raping us on the price of the original iPhone (while subsidized they were still charging $600). They've continued with their nonsensical rants about the death of the PC, with their persecution of a journalist by seducing REACT to act upon a lost iPhone (that had already been returned) and seizing the journalists records in violation of the the federal shield laws), with their extremely restrictive developer license that doesn't allow the developer to write programs using but the tools they develop and sell (all the while making totally lame excuses for doing so), with their utter bullshit about HTML5 and their public disrespect of Adobe while talking trash about one of their products that drives 75% of the video on the web, about their threats against open source products due to their heavy patent investment in h.264. We can continue this. Stop freaking buying Apple products. There are many good alternatives to everything, especially their desktop computers (which are just cheap PC inside glitzy aluminum shells).
I used to read Jerry Pournelle and purchased the magazine just for his articles. When they went paywall web based I ceased. I liked having/holding the magazine. I see he is also paywalled.
You need to read more about how he invests in businesses in Africa and other 3rd world nations to understand some of the plundering his investments do and the health problems they create.
But you can't buy a computer without an OS (unless you build it yourself) and for nearly two decades you could only buy a computer that had Microsoft products installed.
In another write up within the last week someone else made a comparison of Steve Jobs to Einstein (and others). I was insulted. Jobs is no where near that level of accomplishment. When I see references to Gates and his co-whatevers, I am insulted as well. If history does its' job Gates will be seen for what he really was. Unlike the past when history was written by the victor in the world of the web, where no one source has propaganda control, there's no way we won't see these people for what they are. The only ones to be taken will be those already predisposed to having their heads in the clouds.
I'm certain that Gates and his buddies all understand that if we don't invest then we will find ourselves waiting for our share of energy, and that will have serious affects on our economy. Gates' wealth will dwindle as a result. Of course, he could always move to another country or buy his own before it really affects him.
Slashdot Mirror
I can remember 12 year olds saying shit like that.
I'm sure it's going to be a Bing cloud tablet. Your interface is bing and Windows Live web apps. No way can I see Microsoft being efficient with their mobile OSes enough to accomplish a successful tablet, no matter whether it is cloud based or not.
The source for much of Linux has been reviewed thoroughly reviewed. The conclusions showed no code of consequence. Certainly nothing like the millions and millions of lines claimed by SCO.
If SCO had anything of consequence it'd have been disclosed long ago. There were plenty of depositions and it's not legal for the plaintiff to withhold evidence.
SCO is dead, period.
Not novel, but has to be something that someone skilled in that field would not have been able to work out as a natural progression from an existing concept.
That makes this patent application based on something obvious.
Opera 10.60 is a nice browser. They still haven't learned the benefit of add-ons such as adblock plus (making it possible), and they still can't figure out how to program for QT4. I also have long delays when trying to connect to a site. But, when the page is displayed it scrolls fast.
No, I'm not being facetious.
Let's use it so nothing else can. Oh, and btw, let's just use it to heat things up, consume more power, and make the system overall less responsive. And, let's use it just to use it because it is there.
Bullshit. That's moronic. If you think it is a good project, go there and revive it, so to speak.
I stated there's a point of no return. You won't see improvements after a point. That means all competitive elements will be in the software.
The hobbled OSX that Apple has implemented has serious limits. Just look at the hacked multitasking implementation as an example. Software will be the key and it won't be the App store's software. Apple will hit a brick wall if they aren't already near it.
Contrary to popular belief, little things don't mean a lot.
I am waiting for any good tablets.
There, fixed that for you.
That's patently false. First, the key to both the iPad and the Android tablets are software. The hardware from Apple won't and can't change much. The form factor and weight dictate it. That pretty much leaves software the differentiate it. Individual apps can only account for so much of that. Meaning, the end user will only install and use so many apps. Apple's UI is very restrictive. The UI from Android is very flexible, customizable and open.
The iPad technically, from a software OS/UI approach can't withstand the onslaught of years of tablet development. The UI is the one feature of the iPad that will slow the acceptance of the Android. Anyone developing a unit to compete with the iPad are likely in this for the long haul and will be spending as much time competition with Apple as Apple does with any other industry, meaning a lot of competition is going to change the face of things as time passes.
When you earn a bad rating in one area you tend to see that carried into others, such as product overall approval. So, the approval process is important to almost everyone affected from the developer to the end-user.
The results of the survey were clarified by the other data such as (most were pre-existing Apple customers, most had Macs or iPhones, most purchased the iPad near launch day, most participants were from the US). This certainly overshadowed the approval ratings.
Due to the fact that, most were early adopters owning Apple products and using it in conjunction with another Apple product, it demonstrates why certain aspects didn't hit home with them, such as the absence of flash, the walled garden, etc).
No one guarantees anyone or any business success. Clearly the money has shifted rather than been lost. There's no proof that the downloaded music didn't generate more sales (or that it would have generated a sale in the first place). There are numerous legitimate studies that show that those people that download music tend to purchase more music than those that don't download. Claims of piracy are one thing, but to claim a lost sale for every download is ridiculous.
Even the Supreme Court of the United States of America recognizes this as copyright infringement, and that it is a completely different animal than theft. Downloading music, according to the HIGHEST COURT in the USA, isn't theft, period. It's copyright infringement. The studies and reports touted by the RIAA have been debunked so many times in so many ways that even the federal agencies responsible for examining them have come out with firm affirmation that the studies are misleading exaggerations meant to manipulate law makers.
First, my mom has passed.
Couldn't disagree with you more. What I wrote is well documented recent history. Not many people would agree with you on the flash bit. If Apple has problems with it, then it is like Adobe said, there must be something wrong in the OS that contributes. Flash supports 75% of the video on the web.
And, as far as the journalist goes, no jury in the world would convict him as a thief, and no DA would charge him with theft, due to how bailor/bailee works in the state. He didn't steal it. He was a bailee and hence he could do what he wanted with it. Theft also implies that an item was taken with malice with the intent to permanently deny the owner possession. Good luck getting that past a jury.
You have to be kidding. Over the past two years they have done nothing but erode trust. It started when they removed DRM from itunes but started inserting customer information into the downloaded files (and they did this without informing the customer). Then there are the slew of things that they have done to cripple their competitors with anti-competitive measures, have dictated what we as the end user should and should not be able to do with the devices we own. They began this by raping us on the price of the original iPhone (while subsidized they were still charging $600). They've continued with their nonsensical rants about the death of the PC, with their persecution of a journalist by seducing REACT to act upon a lost iPhone (that had already been returned) and seizing the journalists records in violation of the the federal shield laws), with their extremely restrictive developer license that doesn't allow the developer to write programs using but the tools they develop and sell (all the while making totally lame excuses for doing so), with their utter bullshit about HTML5 and their public disrespect of Adobe while talking trash about one of their products that drives 75% of the video on the web, about their threats against open source products due to their heavy patent investment in h.264. We can continue this. Stop freaking buying Apple products. There are many good alternatives to everything, especially their desktop computers (which are just cheap PC inside glitzy aluminum shells).
I say to you, get real.
I guess it is slightly different than a paywall (as in if enough people pay the subscription it is open to all).
I used to read Jerry Pournelle and purchased the magazine just for his articles. When they went paywall web based I ceased. I liked having/holding the magazine. I see he is also paywalled.
Alternative energy is the future and many will make tremendous fortunes, including Gates.
You need to read more about how he invests in businesses in Africa and other 3rd world nations to understand some of the plundering his investments do and the health problems they create.
But you can't buy a computer without an OS (unless you build it yourself) and for nearly two decades you could only buy a computer that had Microsoft products installed.
It's a tax write off in numerous countries.
In another write up within the last week someone else made a comparison of Steve Jobs to Einstein (and others). I was insulted. Jobs is no where near that level of accomplishment. When I see references to Gates and his co-whatevers, I am insulted as well. If history does its' job Gates will be seen for what he really was. Unlike the past when history was written by the victor in the world of the web, where no one source has propaganda control, there's no way we won't see these people for what they are. The only ones to be taken will be those already predisposed to having their heads in the clouds.
I'm certain that Gates and his buddies all understand that if we don't invest then we will find ourselves waiting for our share of energy, and that will have serious affects on our economy. Gates' wealth will dwindle as a result. Of course, he could always move to another country or buy his own before it really affects him.
Microsoft is just as evil, if not more, just in other ways.
Couldn't agree more.
What dumbfounds me is that anyone believes Apple's PR in this regard.
Pathetic!