Man, what are they gonna have to do to get through to you... make it work or something?
Man, what are they gonna have to do to get through to you... make it work or something?
1. Create an intranet for collaboration. There are numerous open source projects and proprietary products that can make collaborating between tablets very easy. Some allow easy customization to generation tracking or forms systems to allow you to process and share data instead of using spreadsheet or word processing applications.
2. Make sure you have a nice stylus with palm recognition and pressure sensitivity. Adonit's products for iPad, Samsung or Microsoft's own products are great as well.
3. Use Screenleap to share a desktop with several tablets. It has HTML5 support, is pretty cheap (pay as you go) and very well made API if you want to integrate it with your intranet.
4. Stick to open standards. Use established Internet standards like HTML5, PNG or SIP, and not browser-specific features or plugins, WebM or WebRTC.
5. Do not use a program like Evernote or OneNote, when you can just as easily use iOS or Android's built in handwriting systems to just insert text into documents or web-forms.
6. Buy plenty of power chargers.
7. Invest in wireless access points that allow for two gigabit up-links so you can take full advantage of 802.11ac. Max theoretical speed is around 7 Gbits.
8. Do not buy the cell modem version of a tablet unless you are off-site constantly or have a lot of transmissions when off-site. Otherwise, rely on smartphone data sharing, shared mobile hotspot devices or local wireless.
9. Make sure any design/paint/doodling app you decide to standardize on has versioning built-in so you can easily undo mistakes, because you will be making a lot of mistakes.
10. Recognize that the first six months will most likely be frustrating, but by month five you will be working as fast as paper and after month six you will be saving time.
We should not only enforce fair pricing on interconnects (perhaps even require public data on them) but we should also be demanding that Quality of Service (QOS) is honored from end to end.
There are numerous applications that are running across the Internet today that require higher QOS levels but the priority gets dropped 2-3 hops out so they can only be run on local LANs or private WANs.
Why can the next generation never avoid falling into the same traps as the previous generation? What are we doing wrong?
Where as Qi seems to be mostly built-in devices, so no grandfather (or father) support.
Part of me wants to think the guy is just nuts but this is starting to seem like a trend from Google.
They try to create a many options/products as possible to weaken established standards and then take them over with half-assed efforts that never work out.
Two hydrogen atoms are completely unique to one another but it is harder to measure the differences than larger items because of the difference in scale and since they both generally behave the same way no on cares to explore their uniqueness until the difference is noticeable and worth exploration.
We know this to be true because nothing can be perfectly split and if nothing can be perfectly split then there cannot be two particles that are exactly the same. If a single particle cannot be split into two equal particles, then no two combination of particles can produce the same unique item again. Therefore, all particles must be truly and absolutely unique in some fashion.
So, the idea that contrary leptons can be symmetric is absurd.
Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.
Not everything should or needs to be done in a single application. The idea of creating a monolithic platform is a wonderful idea, but ONLY if it confirms strictly to a set of standards AND is secure. The more "features" you add, the harder it is to keep secure and the farther you deviate from the standards, so it is counter-productive.
Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?
Because Firefox makes most of it's money from Google and since Google ignores the need for a standard, they are essentially bullying everyone into accepting their "features" or a huge portion of the web will stop working in your browser (happened for Chrome twice, IE four times, Netscape twice as well, so everyone is at fault).
That ship has long left the harbour. HTML5 is a reality and it has been for quite some time now. Whatever the W3C decides to do isn't really relevant as long as the browser vendors are on the same page. The W3C could have had a nice role in this, but they're just too slow and overly bureaucratic to keep up with what is going on in the real world.
W3C had a huge role in HTML5 and what they ratify will be the standard. If a browser goes beyond that standard, they should be severely punished by the web community as Microsoft has been because of their deviations in Internet Explorer 5 and 6. But now that Microsoft is sticking to standards, after either realizing their error or conforming finally, they seem to be the ones keeping the other browsers (and developers) from going off the deep end.
You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.
If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W3C yet. Internet Explorer did not roll-out HTML5 until it reached Draft Recommended status, which in my opinion is the prudent thing to do
And if you had not a history lesson of the mistakes of HTML past, numerous standards today were not allowed to be thought out because one side or another forced it down everyone's throats. Most of those poorly-thought-out and bullied standards are what are holding us back now.
In my opinion this actually can make spreadsheets more correct, since you can share the spreadsheet easily and even watch the data as it is being manipulated by formulas, whereas most proprietary programs only give you the ending output. You can run different functions against the same ranges, direct their output to different sheets, etc.
There are a lot of options when it comes to modern spreadsheet software.
If you have a custom formula in a spreadsheet, create it in the program's scripting language instead of copy/pasting to tons of cells. Create the spreadsheet in a repeatable layout that is ease to understand the sections and the flow of the data.
I do not see how that is any different than using a proprietary program. At least with a spreadsheet you can look directly at the code for errors. In a proprietary program, you would need to learn what the behavior of the libraries or the specific nomenclature that is typically not always standardized.
The entire article reads more like a "why don't people use what I use" argument and not a reasonable critique.
PNG was designed as patent free so there was never any treat of being sued if you used it.
Meanwhile, Google holds all of the patents for WebM and WebRTC. They have not released them to the public domain, so it is a power play and not a standard meant to improve the overall situation.
There is a huge difference between "royalty free" and "patent free". The former just means the guy with the club isn't demanding a toll today, while the latter means no one will ever get clubbed period.
Someone should send them a link to 4Chan and watch the entire committee's heads explode.
Google has derailed so much of the web's evolution in an attempt to control it that they do not have the right for them or any Google lover to suggest they get to the web's standards from committees. From the "development" trees in Chrome, to WebRT and WebM, they have splintered the internet numerous times with no advantage to the greater good.
The committee was strong armed into considering SPDY simply because they knew Google could force it down everyone's throats with their monopoly powers across numerous industries (search, advertising, email, hosting, android, etc.). HTTP/1.1 has worked well for the web. The internet has not had any issues in the last 22 years except when assholes like Google and Microsoft decided to deviate from a centralized standard.
There is no way we should let Google set ANY standard after the numerous abuses they have done over the last 8 years, nor should any shills like you be allowed to suggest they should be the one calling the shots.
So, kindly go to hell.