arunrajmohan
Sep 12, 07:44 AM
It's called hype, my friend.
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
Tampa Tom
May 4, 07:08 AM
....
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time.
Obviously you haven't tried to run iOS 4 and above on an iPhone 3G. While it does limp along, it is not a good user experience.
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time.
Obviously you haven't tried to run iOS 4 and above on an iPhone 3G. While it does limp along, it is not a good user experience.
rorschach
Apr 29, 04:12 PM
Why are you people talking about scroll bars and scrolling? This article is about the buttons in sub-pane selectors. Not scrolling.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
samcraig
May 2, 02:34 PM
Common sense to a programmer is not all ways the same same a common sense to a user. :confused:
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
The common sense I referred to is that an on/off switch doesn't need to be explained to a user. Off = Off. On = On.
The code is NOT working as intended. Apple even said so. Turning it off wasn't supposed to continue the recording of locations.
That's like the old joke that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Look - they're fixing it. They know it was an issue (now for certain). That's really what matters here.
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
The common sense I referred to is that an on/off switch doesn't need to be explained to a user. Off = Off. On = On.
The code is NOT working as intended. Apple even said so. Turning it off wasn't supposed to continue the recording of locations.
That's like the old joke that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Look - they're fixing it. They know it was an issue (now for certain). That's really what matters here.
more...
Much Ado
Jan 12, 03:46 AM
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
As soon as you start advertising on your blog and maintain a healthy stream for revenue from hits, you become more than just a blog. They owe it to themselves to be professional for the sake of their reputations, and they just screwed that up royally.
As soon as you start advertising on your blog and maintain a healthy stream for revenue from hits, you become more than just a blog. They owe it to themselves to be professional for the sake of their reputations, and they just screwed that up royally.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
more...
Cagle
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Steve Jobs describes Apple�s theory in making apps; set a bar for developers to do better...
:eek:
:eek:
Diode
Apr 21, 04:21 PM
I like the reputation system slickdeals uses. Give points to useful posts (that the user then accumulates) - allows people to realize who the better posters are, as having a high post count can be worthless.
more...
TheWheelMan
Mar 17, 05:10 PM
Love this forum for a good laugh. Obviously the OP was wrong with what he did but love laughing at all the holier than thou responses. :D
You mean like posting just to say "I'm laughing at you all?" Welcome to the "holier than thou club, buddy.
You mean like posting just to say "I'm laughing at you all?" Welcome to the "holier than thou club, buddy.
superfula
Apr 29, 06:54 PM
NT 4 and Windows 95/98 don't use the same kernel at all. They might share the GUI sub-system (actually, it's called the Win32 sub-system, which is probably what Windows Team blog is referring when referring to API versions, since Win32 is the Windows API) (and yes, I know the 64 bit version is called Win64, just like the 16 bit version was called Win16), but they do not share the same architecture/kernel at all, which Smitty inferred. So no, Smitty wasn't right at all, is use of the word kernel was wrong and confusing.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
more...
Peel
Oct 2, 06:07 PM
You'd expect Jobs would have some sympathy for the guy, what with his phreaking days before Apple.
I had a roommate in college that had an actual Jobs/Wozniak-built blue box. It was about 10 years old at the time, but still worked fine.
I had a roommate in college that had an actual Jobs/Wozniak-built blue box. It was about 10 years old at the time, but still worked fine.
dscuber9000
Apr 15, 04:45 PM
Google is finding out just how difficult it is to negotiate with record labels. :p
more...
CoolAccent
Nov 23, 04:35 PM
According to Apple's Canadian website, the Black Friday sale will be there too, not only in the U.S.
TrulyYuki
Apr 6, 12:44 PM
Jared1988,
where did you get those? Did you make them?
My mom and I would love some!
We already have those rubber bracelets but we have very tiny wrists.
where did you get those? Did you make them?
My mom and I would love some!
We already have those rubber bracelets but we have very tiny wrists.
more...
GadgetGav
May 2, 02:26 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
How do you know it's "intentional" and not a "bug"..??
How do you know it's "intentional" and not a "bug"..??
gugy
Nov 16, 12:39 PM
this is totally bull. Apple is in no position to stab Intel in their back at this time. Plus, Intel is being very reliable delivering on schedule the chips Apple needs. Maybe in few years if their relationship deteriorate I might consider seeing Apple moving into AMD. But it is not happening anytime soon.
more...
lukenorris
Jan 11, 11:53 PM
I wonder if this device turns off movie projectors?
LUKE
LUKE
Matt-M
Apr 16, 10:09 AM
The new pics posted by Khazov Denis are interesting, but it looks like the model number on the back is A1289, which would not be consistent with the current numbering:
A1203 - Original iPhone
A1241 - iPhone 3G
A1303 - iPhone 3GS
A1324 - iPhone 3G no WiFi (for China)
A1325 - iPhone 3GS no WiFi (for China)
A1203 - Original iPhone
A1241 - iPhone 3G
A1303 - iPhone 3GS
A1324 - iPhone 3G no WiFi (for China)
A1325 - iPhone 3GS no WiFi (for China)
Koodauw
Sep 12, 01:01 AM
That phone looks amazing. Wish I could have one.
inket
Apr 13, 03:06 PM
CMD+K and entering the SMB sharing name fixed it I presume ?
penter
Dec 25, 02:20 PM
Yes they do. BUT not when it means a crap ass experience for the customer. Because that just results in returns, complaints etc. LTE right now is only in a handful of major cities and not even perfect coverage there.
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
Megakazbek
May 4, 09:36 AM
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
This is how my typical lectures look like and I don't really see how do you even try to approach typing something like this on a keyboard in real time:
http://i.imgur.com/5kSuS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NMtQn.jpg
etc
Actually, having stylus isn't really that important for taking lecture notes as usually they are available as pdfs anyway, but I don't see how you can do without a pen when solving math/physics problems.
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
ALL of them have tips of enormous diameter. I've tried some of them, and you really can't write in small handwriting, your letters have to be big and in many cases you can't even fit some equations in one line. Those styluses are not a good solution.
This is how my typical lectures look like and I don't really see how do you even try to approach typing something like this on a keyboard in real time:
http://i.imgur.com/5kSuS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NMtQn.jpg
etc
Actually, having stylus isn't really that important for taking lecture notes as usually they are available as pdfs anyway, but I don't see how you can do without a pen when solving math/physics problems.
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
ALL of them have tips of enormous diameter. I've tried some of them, and you really can't write in small handwriting, your letters have to be big and in many cases you can't even fit some equations in one line. Those styluses are not a good solution.
Jethrotoe
Apr 22, 08:44 AM
"Thanks" might work in a pure support form. But for news discussion, it makes little sense.
arn
I think that's the real issue here. It would clearly work in some forums and not others. IMO.
I started today in the programmers forum. I saw the buttons and assumed (I know!) what they were probably for. I read a posted question and then several answers. One was better (at least for me) than the others and I like the ability to vote for that answer. It could, if further options are added, help others interested in that question to zero in on that answer. Or, just to let the person who gave that answer a "one up" to let them know that their answer was cool.
This all works for me.
Now in the other forums where there is much more subjective material? It could be a zoo.
To add: I think I see a lot of shoot from the hip posts on this. I think we should give the team a chance to see how it works out and what changes they may or may not make.
arn
I think that's the real issue here. It would clearly work in some forums and not others. IMO.
I started today in the programmers forum. I saw the buttons and assumed (I know!) what they were probably for. I read a posted question and then several answers. One was better (at least for me) than the others and I like the ability to vote for that answer. It could, if further options are added, help others interested in that question to zero in on that answer. Or, just to let the person who gave that answer a "one up" to let them know that their answer was cool.
This all works for me.
Now in the other forums where there is much more subjective material? It could be a zoo.
To add: I think I see a lot of shoot from the hip posts on this. I think we should give the team a chance to see how it works out and what changes they may or may not make.
snowmentality
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
I'm not surprised, but I don't like it.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
No comments:
Post a Comment