I've been holding off on buying a tablet. Two issues for me are screen related. The last couple of netbooks I bought were HP/Compaq for one reason only - non-glare matte screens. I really cannot stand the shiny screens that you almost have to be in the dark to use (or maybe dress all in black). Are any of the tablets providing that?

The other issue was resolution and size - I don't want a 10" tablet - it's too big, if I wanted something that big I'd take a netbook - although in part the Transformer addresses that nicely. 7" is grab-able without needing cases or worrying too much about bashing it - but I also want 700+ by 1024+ resolution (and on netbooks too fer gawd's sake!!!). On the latter issue alone I'm thinking of skipping a tablet altogether and just going for a Galaxy Nexus once the bugs have been shaken out.

So along with all the other normally desirable features of a tablet (camera, sensors, interfaces, storage etc.) a 7", non-glare matte screen with 700+ x 1024+ resolution... anything like that out there yet?

Now me, I like books. I always figure that when I have a lot of travel time ahead of me, I should sock a bunch of reading matter into my bag for those long stretches, so I don't run out. And you know what? Almost always, that stuff ends up sitting in my bag unread.

If that's why you're taking books then you need only one - Moby Dick - it will last longer than you need no matter the situation. ;)

Do you know why you travel? To travel. To experience new things, new people, new places. Not to fuck around with a gadget...

I agree and that extends to those taking expensive cameras that are constantly in use - all the effort is going into taking pictures instead of actually experiencing and appreciating the location. I say that as someone who has been heavily into photography for a very long time. Just take a half decent camera that doesn't weigh a lot and only take it out once in a while - believe me nobody is going to look through 15,173 pictures when they get back from their 2 week trip. It was already bad enough in the before times when Bert and Sally would bring out the vacation slides...

My Dad was an amateur photographer with a darkroom at a time when that was pretty rare and in his younger pre-parent days spent a few years travelling through India and Africa. He came back with maybe 200 pictures - they were all great, told the story of his travelling and the places and people and looking through them after his death I couldn't imagine how "more" would have been "better" in any way.

Oooh look! Kardashians!

Quick, Phasers on full! Red alert! Red Alert! Lt. inform the Federation by sub-space radio that we have encountered the Kardashians!!

Here is the thing. Science is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people would rather live a comfortable lie than facing the cold, hard truth.

Sadly I agree that the first two apply to an awfully large portion of the population, in the U.S. and elsewhere. Your third point is often true but that isn't what is always at work. Often what is going on is that people become exhausted with argument and just want an answer - any answer. I watched a small group of people who thought they had a problem argue for years about whether the problem existed. The people who believed the problem existed were scared. The other people didn't want didn't want to spend large amounts of money (several 10's of thousands of dollars each) on something they didn't believe was a serious problem.

Both sides were tired of arguing. Along came a guy with an engineer in his pocket (or vice versa) and the engineer told them the sky was falling. He offered to do an engineering assessment for less than half what any reputable company would have charged and they went for it.

The flunky sent to do the study wasn't even an engineer. Then there was another meeting. I have worked with a lot of engineers and they would never have made the kind of statements the head guy was making at that meeting. He also said a lot of things that I knew were put in a very biased way but there was no good way to put this across to people who didn't have the intellectual skills to understand.

I suggested that before they committed to spending what would be a huge amount of money for each that they get a second opinion from another engineering company - a proper study would cost < 1% of the proposed project budget. People agreed but the elected committee put in charge cut the report budget to about 25% of what was needed and placed other restrictions on the 2nd company - to the point where the 2nd report was prefaced with disclaimers about this and stating that they were prevented from making necessary measurements.

So that second report said not much of anything and the project was pushed ahead. The people on the committee didn't want to have a dissenting opinion. They didn't want to have to argue about the facts. They didn't want to know the truth. And the whole group of people didn't want to have yet another fight about the whole process so they just went with the 1st engineer's recommendations. They didn't even take the simple precaution of eliminating the bias introduced by profit incentive by starting the whole process by making it clear that the companies who did the reports would not be the engineering company that would eventually be hired to do any work.

It was all very predictable - the group that thought there was a problem got someone to say they were right They didn't take precautions to ensure the people giving the opinion were as unbiased as possible and then prevented any chance of getting a contradictory opinion.

The other faction would probably have done similar things if they had had the chance. The only thing everybody had in common was that they wanted some resolution, any resolution, whether right or wrong. Half way through the project, when it was too late to turn back, it turned out the problem was nothing like what had been predicted - one guess as to whether anyone would admit that.

People want answers. Frequently they are not equipped to personally judge the answers they are given. Then they are given dissenting opinions which they are also not equipped to judge. Arguments rage back and forth. Eventually emotional burnout ensues and they just want any answer so it will be over with. Once they reach that point there is nothing, no fact, no logic, that will budge them.

See once again you show yourself to be an arrogant prick, [and he goes on and on and on in that vein]

Perhaps you have extreme difficulty understanding what I've said because of some language problem but I think your opening line rules that out as the problem.

What's left is that you are such a very badly twisted and angry person that you can't make a coherent argument because you see things through such a distorted lens that you are left claiming I said things which I didn't, reading into things what isn't there, making glib excuses (e.g. it's not that you were wrong it's that language changed and me expecting the normal usage of words and phrases is just being pedantic) and generally frothing and foaming.

There isn't much I can do but feel sorry for you. In neither case can you be communicated with in any meaningful manner. You are an embarrassment both to yourself and to young people and while I could dissect your posts statement by statement and show how ridiculous they are you appear to be so rigid that you would never be able to see it and I would have wasted my time. I can only pray for the poor souls over whom you might have some measure of authority because you seem like quite the petty tyrant.

Stop creating straw man arguments, everything is never equal which is the whole point of the problem.

See? An experienced person would know the actual meaning of that phrase, obviously you don't. They would also know the proper use of the term "straw man" and again obviously you don't.

And when the question is if that thing is better than some other thing, they both have just as much experience. Zero.

Why, because you say so? The person experienced with Tech A is more likely to know how Tech A will relate to Tech B than the person who is inexperienced with both Tech A and Tech B.

There is a big difference between wisdom and blind arrogance, you appear to fall very much in the second

I'm glad you recognize that obvious point. You might apply it to your statements.

See that the real difference between an arrogant sob like you and me, I never really think I'm absolutely right.

Since you don't know me that is a pretty arrogant thing for you to say. That you have to call me names says worlds about you however.

If it makes you feel better, keep making generalization and a smug attitude.

Uh Huh... not like you eh?

Then again someone who in their 50s and hasn't moved beyond software engineering likely lacks the social skills to properly convey their wisdom anyway.

Gee I guess people cant' just stay in a field because they like it then. Apparently in your value system you have to keep moving up the ladder or you have poor social skills. LOL that says nothing about me or reality in general and so very much about you.

Cool, maybe I can learn something from him then. It's always nice to talk to someone who sees things from a different perspective and try to learn from them.

Unless the different perspective comes from being around long enough to know more than you then it's arrogance right? Where are all these guys telling you they're right because they are older than you???? I can imagine that might happen from time to time but I've never heard anyone say anything like that. But you have no trouble stereotyping a whole group of people... you know maybe it's you who attract people who say that sort of thing.

Merry Christmas and watch out for that coal in your stocking.

You expect your age to equal wisdom and to matter but frankly it doesn't. It's just annoying and worthless most of the time.

All other things being equal, generally someone who works X years at something will in fact know more that someone who works X/2 years at the same thing. The fact that you don't recognize that shows an attitude problem on your part.

Even if it is pertinent you probably can't convey it in a way that doesn't come off as "I'm older, I know better, now shut up."

Maybe you have problems accepting that being more experienced than you generally does mean that they do know better than you. It is a particular arrogance of youth to think that age is a liability rather than an asset. By your lights you won't know any more 20 years from now than you do now, and that will likely include an inability to avoid wild generalizations and projecting a smug attitude. LOL I only wish I could be around 20 years from now when some young punk tells you that you are just annoying and worthless and he knows just as much as you do.

There may be some guys who aren't any wiser after 20 years practising in the field but they certainly are a minority. I suspect that among the young guys who do have problems with older co-workers the problem they most likely have with the older guys is that the older guys do in fact know more and it makes the young guy feel inferior to admit that to himself. I bet the same guys had/have a lot of trouble with parental and other authority figures.

A million? Is that all? No wonder so many Canadian tech people are moving down there. Vancouver is usually conceptually divided into Vancouver East and Vancouver West, roughly equal in size. In Vancouver West the average price of a detached single family dwelling went over $2 million this year - in my neighbourhood that's the price of a little bungalow on a standard city lot.

CIOs lament that they are unable to retain 20-something techies

Errrr, then maybe hire somewhat older people who are already trained and experienced?

Oh yeah, that might mean higher salaries and acknowledging they have lives outside the company... yeah makes better sense to just keep on hiring and training 20-somethings and watching them leave...sheesh

Young people can work hard and make a fortune.

Just young people??? Can't us hard working old people make a fortune too?

I know you aren't supposed to follow-up to yourself but I've now seen other posts that say data only is available in Canada contrary to what I said above - just wanted to point that out.

The other day I decided that this was exactly what I needed - e.g. a Galaxy Nexus with data only. But afaik none of the carriers in Canada will offer the Nexus that way - or any phone plan for normal people that doesn't require voice with data just an add-on - even though at least some will sell you a data only plan to use on your laptop.

As long as I'm griping why is it (I know - greed) that I can get a pay as you go phone that includes caller id and voicemail for less per month than adding those features to a normal cell plan?

ok so it seems that they did not in fact close down NYC soup kitchens over that issue. I think it would be a mistake for either side of this issue to use homeless, hungry people as bargaining chips.

My only other comment is that the article you last linked to recommends some alternatives and strictly from the point of view of what happens to your money I wouldn't donate to the Red Cross. I've never seen anything negative about the other three, OTOH none of them deal with the kind of homelessness I see on my city's streets - single men sleeping under bridges, in parks etc. with no food and inadequate clothing for the weather.

That article is all about an employer-employee dispute it doesn't say "They explicitly refuse service to gays." as you have said. And the article is about what the gay paper reported they might do - back in May 2004 - almost 8 years ago. Perhaps something a little more recent about what they do now as far as service to gays? That's what you were saying - that they denied services to gays which, even from that old article, sounds like it isn't the case.

On the benefits to partners of gay employees I am surprised that isn't something controlled by state law - I think it would be controlled by Provincial and Federal law here. It seems to me that if gays are allowed to legally marry in NY then wouldn't the law there require their spouses to be given the same treatment as straight spouses?

I am not aware of any such policy here. But it's not just a different city but a different country so it's possible that its varies from place to place.

On refusing service to gay in NYC... you mean they have some sort of sexuality text or oath before the soup kitchen will feed someone?