This isn't quite true any more. There are a number of system now in use that use sound and muzzle flash characteristics to pinpoint and identify the direction and gun the shot came from.
I believe those systems fall into the "wait for the bang" category mentioned, which, of course, is less than an ideal combat situation.
And I hate to say it, but I really appreciate Adobe treating Linux well.
As silly as it sounds to me to say it, but ditto, and, um, yay.
Love, hate, or don't care about Flash, it's nice to have the option.
It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.
Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...
And yet you still use Facebook, daily?
Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.
Delete your account. Then promptly give your email address to anyone who complains and tell them to write some actual correspondence once in a while. If a photograph isn't worth attaching to an email and including a personalised message relevant to it, I don't see any merit to complaints that I'm not there to "Like" it.
I often liken Facebook to a bulliten board located at a hypothetical YMCA (or some sort members-only place, I've never actually seen a YMCA). It'd be ridiculous for me to write a Christmas letter to all my family and expect them to all become members, go to the Y, and read it. Or if you like, it'd be ridiculous for my sister to only post pictures of my niece there, and expect me to get a membership and visit to see it. Bulliten boards, and Facebook, are good for events or notifications, but I don't sympathise with any notion of Facebook replacing personal communication. I'm quite content catching up once in a while rather than a constant, less-personal drip of information.
Oh, and get off my lawn maybe? I'd like to think I have a justified distaste for the Facebook model, rather than being a grumpy old man in his 20s.
Actually, I take that back... go through the comments on the Fox site. The ridiculous amounts of negative feedback on the review more than makes up for the review itself. This should be posted in Idle though, like the joke that it is.
Honestly, I don't care about a fluff piece or negative feedback. If I decide I want a tablet in my life, all that I care about is demo distribution. I don't mean picking one up in a best buy that may or may not turn on. Can I actually demo one, which, as far as I can tell, means taking it home, using it, and seeing if it meets the expectation of being useful (and returning it at no cost to myself otherwise). That may sound like asking a lot, but I don't think it is for any company with faith in their product.
Personally, I think far too many people have got lost in all the hype & marketing over tablets without stopping to think about the possibility that maybe they're just gimmicks anyway, whether iPad or Galaxy Tab.
Smartphones provide a lot in the way of communications, IM and playing music, their weaknesses are down to the screen sizes if you want to play a reasonably good game or watch some video.
A notebook or netbook has the bigger screen to do that, plus it has they have tactile keyboards so you can do serious work on them - something a tablet is not very good at.
So whilst a tablet would fit somewhere between a smartphone and netbook, it clearly is unable to replace either which means it just becomes a third device to carry around with you. And I thought the whole premise behind portability was being able to carry around less.
I'm sure people will have given specific reasons where a "tablet" fits in, but let's be honest: it's a gadget. If you have the money and desire, it takes little effort to find a way that it fits into your life. How many of us need $80-$90/mo cell phone plans? Speaking for myself, I didn't need a laptop, but the sofa and bed are more comfy than my desk (at least after sitting at my desk for long enough).
If you pull the "do we need this" argument, then there's not much to argue. I live with 7 irresponsible housemates (at my age, it's embarrassing but true), and no one wanted to take responsibility for PG&E, which is gas and electricity for those not residing on the US west coast. I warned power would go out eventually, and it did. Unfortunately no one learned a lesson in paying bills, but after a weekend without power, I learned that almost every power source we leave on (every light but the lamp next to anyone included), really isn't necessary. When power was restored, it almost felt wrong to turn any lights on.
Being a big iPhone that can't make phone calls?
How about being a slimmer netbook that is designed to minimize the "I'm typing on a phone that can't make phone calls" laptop experience?
Just guessing, never used an iPad. I've always argued that it would be awkward for me, if others don't find it so and want to pay for it, why not? This story is Galaxy Tab vs iPad, so I think a much better question is what's the iPad experience that makes it different from a great Android phone vs an iPhone, translated to a tablet. I've never for a second felt I've missed out not having an iPhone with my Android phone, why should the iPad make me feel different?
The prez just won his second term
my thoughts exactly
Heh, I'd never have picked out Leon Panetta to end up where he has. As to Mr. Obama, I don't see any easy way for him to gain political capital from this that can be capitalised upon. The opposition's rhetoric has been more effective than ever lately at deadpanning a negative spin on just about anything.
Interesting, so the US has ground troops in Pakistan, too? Shall we assume that they have both permission of the Pakistani government and the constitutional blessing of the US Congress for being at war in a FOURTH country...
Why, yes, as a matter of fact they do. And I'm glad to see that you are clear that they are fighting against the same enemy in Pakistan, not against Pakistan.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.--- Authorization for Use of Military Force
The coverage was pretty clear, this Navy Seal strike was carried out without warning to Pakistan or any allies. It was "considered to sensitive". That said, CIA ops tend to fall into a civilian category, and don't implicitly create a fourth military front. The CIA has been killing Al-Queda and Taliban leaders inside of Pakistan for years now, primarily (but not exclusively) via the much publicized Predator Drones.
That said, I can't see any Pakistani leaders taking a public stance against this particular operation; it's a major embarrassment for them at best. In Afghanistan, Karzai has already praised the action, painting it as a warning for all remaining Taliban to put down their arms and stop killing their brothers. Perhaps more interesting is the idea that, as a figurehead for a war against the west (where everyone in the cause is counted as a soldier), I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden's death was seen as anything other than an eventuality. Considering their already effective recruiting techniques, I would bet his death hurts Al-Queda's cause a lot more than it will help.
I want to see a long form death certificate
I have it on good authority that Bin Laden was actually a secretly practicing Methodist, born in Oregon, and was fully eligible to run for the President of the United States. Without having official State Department certified documents to the contrary, I'm pretty sure that's all confirmed.
>>...do you really think the TSA's antics have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Other than using the attacks as an excuse.
Of course they were a response to 9/11. Do you really think the massive increase in homeland security spending (let alone the creation of the DHS) had nothing to do with 9/11?
From the TSA's website: "We were created in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to strengthen the security of the nation's transportation systems."
Their molestation of passengers and endless luggage screening queues are the direct result of that. Note that I'm not saying they do any good, just that there was a causal effect between 9/11 and our new body-groping overlords.
The huge spending and gov't expansion that is the Dept. of Homeland Security and of course the TSA was obviously triggered by the 9/11 attacks. The point, however, is while the attack was terrorism, the response was entirely an American one, and a mistake at that IMO.
Regardless of what lead to the creation of the TSA along with the escalation of their "antics", if it's a waste of money and an violation of individual rights (still not legally resolved, I know) one can hardly blame that on the terrorists. The causal effect reveals the gross mistakes taken by the US government, as they were hardly the single required response.
Ok, warning, I'm about to be kind to Microsoft. Further warning, its about the Zune.
iTunes completely blows, which we all know. However Microsoft's Zune gets blasted all the time for the hardware, which I won't argue, though I do own one (and thought it had a slight edge over the iPods that were out when it came out, thickness aside). But has anybody used the Zune software? Its really pretty good, especially when next to iTunes. Now that they've discontinued the hardware, I hope they don't end up scrapping the whole music library altogether. My instinct is that if I ever used Rhapsody or the new Napster that I would probably like their software as well. Does anybody know how they all stack up against each other when running on windows?
I remember when the iPod came out and I felt it didn't come close to the elegance and beauty of my Sony Minidisc players. Immediate storage capacity was an obvious feature, although I never found carrying a few minidiscs around to be annoying. However, a major reason I've owned two iPods in my life and never bought a Minidisc player after the MZ-N1 is the point you bring up: software. Whatever bad things anyone has to say about iTunes, it cannot be compared negatively to SonicStage. I could even have lived with it's "convert from MP3s on the fly or convert your whole library to something nothing else could play" aspect, if it wasn't so riddled with bugs I'd be lucky to have all the graphical components of the interface show up at once (if it didn't crash).
That said, given the disposable income, I'm sure I'd buy (or import) one of the latest Sony Minidisc players, if only for the joy of great portable hardware.
It's the Australian Prime Minister.
I assume this was article was submitted by an Australian, and to that person I would say you need to get a little self-respect.
It's not insulting, it's a compliment.
I'm an Aussie, and I bear the term proudly. I am also proud of our long, rich heritage of not having sticks up our collective arses. Now an expat, I often refer to home as "Oz" and fondly tell stories like that of Bob Dwyer having to apologise to the Queen in 1991.
But, refering to the highest office in the land or any other official goverment entity for that matter as being 'aussie' is just insulting.
PM or not, she bloody well better be an 'Aussie' first.
No, you would refer to him as the US President or more likely just the President, or Obama, even if you hated his guts. To do otherwise is to insult the American people.
According to large portions of the American people, Obama is a terrorist and G.W. Bush was retarded, so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to convey to that Australian who needs "a little self-respect".
iTunes controls 64.5% of the online movie market.
I'll just quote the first sentence from that article:
"Despite intensified competition from fierce rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc.’s iTunes store in 2010 managed to hold onto its dominance in the U.S. market for movie electronic sell through (EST) and Internet video on demand (iVOD), new IHS Screen Digest research shows."
Wait, one more quote from the 3rd paragraph:
“The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/iVOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with an dramatic expansion for the overall market,” said Arash Amel, research director, digital media, for IHS. “Apple faced serious competition from Microsoft's Zune Video and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Store, as well as from Amazon and—most significantly—Wal-Mart."
Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, you're talking about competition in the market. If iTunes has managed to attract a majority of consumers in a market rife with competition, then one can only cry monopoly after digging up anti-competitive practices that specifically play a larger factor than normal consumer choice.
I'm a vegetarian, and I can't agree with them. Humans are naturally omnivores, and we've been cooking meat over fire for several hundred thousand years (rather long than I'd have expected), and, well, cooked meat is tasty. I don't eat it because of the ethical issues with killing animals for food, but that doesn't make them stop tasting good.
Now, they might be able to cure you of disliking vegetables, if they've got any cooking skills, but that's really a separate problem.
Interestingly, I spent a few years as a vegetarian and then vegan, and the concept that it was wrong to kill animals for food was never a convincing argument for me. I have issues with how certain industries generally go about it in the USA (along with many, more practical reasons), but the actual raising and slaughter of animals has always seemed like something one just feels is wrong or doesn't. It makes for an interesting ethics topic, because how can one debate the ethics of something that a person simply believes or not.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
