Screen rotates, that's great. Buttons tend to stay in the same place though. It honestly does take me three goes to turn the thing on.
Fair enough. The air is actually larger than the mini, it's just thinner and lighter than the older models. I do agree that the Nexus 7 is a nice form factor, I just wish it was easier to figure out which way up it was so I could turn the thing on without trying four times (somehow I get the wrong corner three times in a row before finding the little button).
If you're using tablets for hours at a time, you've got more patience than me
On both iOS and Android you can use something called Puffin browser. Five minutes using that thing, and you realise why no mobile OS has any interest in supporting Flash. But if you really need Flash, it's there.
... because it's the form factor of a kindle
I'm wondering, if you wanted a 7" tablet, why you didn't buy an iPad mini instead? Seems a bit unfair to criticise the iPad on size, when the mini is available and is pretty much the same size as a Nexus 7. Not to mention a bit cheaper than the full size iPad.
As a counter-datapoint, I took a couple of Nexus 7's home during the Christmas holidays. And the kids didn't like them at all, and instead fought over the one iPad. Now, this might just be because kids are dumb and like the bigger thing just because it's bigger, and also I'm beginning to suspect that they also quite like fighting just for the hell of it. But the Nexus' didn't charge their batteries while in use and plugged in, whereas the iPad did. Pretty annoying.
That's slightly obtuse isn't it? Your boss is not your client in the sense that I mean at all. Surely this is obvious? Your boss is, I would hope, if he or she is charged with managing programmers, going to provide sort sort of translation layer between his or her talent pool and those who would pay for it.
In any case, bugs happen, and programmers are not super-human and cannot foresee every eventuality present in every line of code.
Also: You did earlier on call programmers 'idiots'. I thought that was a little bit broad, didn't you?
You do seem to be stuck in a "everyone else's job is easier than mine" mentality though. Programming is hard simply because large software programs are the most complex machines built anywhere today. And there are many varieties of programming - your example of 'validating user input before inserting it into an SQL database" is of course something that should be part of standard components. And it's no accident that this is exactly the sort of thing that *is* part of standard components.
But your argument seems to be that everything should be just built out of standard components - and that's the end of it. But what about writing embedded software for machine control? Or something that runs inside your TV? Or a new video compression codec? It just doesn't work that way. Any more than every new car that rolls off the production line is built using the same components that a Model T Ford was constructed from.
What about new Operating Systems? or the implementation of newly designed algorithms? Or writing drivers for new hardware components? It seems that you may live in a world of nothing-but-web, and also that you may have had some bad experiences. Bugs in software are a fact of life, simply because software is written by humans and has to perform a task more complex that we have asked of any automatic system than ever before.
A final point is this, it sounds like you're commenting on a scenario in which a 'programmer' is talking directly to a client. A human whose most marketable skill is his or her ability to talk to a computer often isn't the best person to talk to the client. There are a few for whom these skills intersect, but mostly client interaction should be taken care of by someone skilled in that area. Unless you're a one-man-shop (perhaps you are?) try to have someone good at suggesting different approaches to clients in the room instead.
For the most part, for most people, learning new languages in high school is too late. Primary school, perhaps, preschool or Kindergarten for sure. By the time people are in high school, the plasticity that exists in the infant brain regarding language acquisition is all but gone.
Well, ok. But it sure looked like a general comment about IDEs.
In any case, isn't it surely the language and framework that's hiding stuff from you here, not the IDE? I don't know, I don't do any
The problem I see with IDEs like VS is that the hide a lot of complexity to programmers.
I develop C++ using Visual Studio. What complexity is my IDE hiding from me? What stuff is 'going on inside', that I don't know about? I can break execution, examine a list of threads, the register contents, single-step over the assembly...It seems to me that all the complexity is right there, if I want to see it.
I think they probably made it up, which is even more reason to refuse to use it normal conversation.
like those dudes who first started talking to themselves with hands-free kits for their phones,
Not so much, those guys looked like dicks then, and they look like dicks now.
I can't imagine a world where google glasses (no, I'm not going to call them 'glass') would be useful beyond very niche areas. Security personel might find them pretty helpful, maybe those guys who walk around airport runways waving juggling clubs around might appreciate knowing when the next plane is coming in so they can perform in front of them. But your regular guy on the street - I don't think so. Not ever.
Any technology that requires the user to wear stupid headgear is doomed to failure. There are no exceptions to this rule.
That's a pretty good question, and the only answer that I can come up with is that the engineers thought it would be cool. Everything has a camera these days, but I completely agree that it would be a better device without it. It's probably a shit camera anyway.
Can we please not perpetuate the usage of this absurd term? Not that I think the thing is remotely socially acceptable, just that we don't need a special term for it.
Hmm - I wonder about that.
I don't think that either pi or e contain infinite information. For instance, in the case of pi at least, there exists a recurrence relation that will compute the nth digit of pi. The formula isn't especially complicated, and I don't think that we can say that there's an infinite amount of information in it.
In any case, surely the fact that pi and e crop up endlessly in our mathematical models of the universe, there must be something to them. And if they aren't properties of the universe, then what are they properties of?
For instance. e can be defined as the number such that
d/dx(e^x) = e^x
That's a pretty simple definition, and it so happens that the number that satisfies that definition has an infinite decimal expansion. Does that mean it contains infinite information?