The reason they are doing this is because of previous problems with letting everyone in at the beginning. They messed things up with Buzz when they did that. I think it is a good idea so that a lot of the kinks and small annoyances get worked out.
The problem with Buzz was that everyone was immediately integrated in to Buzz which exposed some aspects of one's other Google service accounts that wasn't otherwise previously available to others.
If it's a niche then it's one invented by Apple to make money from, and good luck to them to he honest.
Not at all. Tablets have been around well before the iPad.
But the fact is that since we have both clearly stated that a tablet does not replace a netbook or laptop, then it just becomes one more device to lug along WITH a netbook or a laptop.
You're missing a more subtle point. It doesn't replace the laptop for general purpose computing. But it might replace the laptop where a laptop is being used for a specific subset of tasks.
Right now, my phone trades off as my main communications interface. I do more email and IM than phonecalls. And I trade off between my laptop and my phone depending on what I'm doing and how involved the communications are. In most cases, I could get away with just the smartphone until the task got involved enough to warrant breaking out the laptop... in situations when said laptop wasn't already running. The point here is the right interface for the task at hand. Not all platforms work well in all situations.
However, having identified that a laptop and smartphone combined do more than a netbook, then it becomes a moot point actually buying one in the first place.
For you maybe. I'm in the market for an inexpensive Android tablet. But I wouldn't dream of tossing out my laptop for one. And as interesting as netbooks were, I'm more interested in a tablet.
Why do I have to repeat stuff 3 or 4 times and STILL they refuse to get it?
I'd suggest you're missing things yourself in your zeal to put "fanbois" in their place.
That doesn't make sense - why would I replace a laptop with something that costs more but has less functionality.
I'm sorry, you and all the other fanbois are trying to find rational reasons for buying iPads when there are none - it's basically a case of doing nothing more than falling for some very clever Apple marketing, marketing that other tablet manufacturers do not use in quite the same way, therefore they don't sell as many.
Take your blinders off - you're seeing fanbois where there are none. I am no Apple fanboi.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I'm not saying that the iPad is a good replacement for a laptop. What I'm saying is that it fits a particular niche. It's a good platform to consume media; watching video, reading, etc. That means it could replace a more general purpose device only if you don't care about anything beyond media consumption. Why would someone give up functionality? Because they don't care about that additional functionality (or at least, don't perceive that they care - people CAN be short sighted).
Just as you're mis-labeling fanbois, you're also mis-labeling the argument. The fanbois have always claimed that the iPad is a revolution in general computing, not a niche platform for specific tasks.
I even remember clearly on here about 18 months ago when the fanbois were justifying their buying iPads and themselves saying that they are not designed to replace laptops or netbooks - therefore a tablet is still one more portable device you have to carry with you because there is no single device that does everything most people need to do.
I think you've got that wrong. The Apple fanbois were claiming that iPads were the new wave and were a replacement for laptops, netbooks, and even quite possibly desktops. The concept was that iPads would drastically alter the very face of computing.
I would think it's a much more reasonable to look at tablets as a different interface for specific tasks. That is - tablets are ideal interfaces for consumption of media. If your use of a laptop is largely watching videos and updating your social messaging service of choice, then sure... a tablet could probably take the place of your laptop.
I'm curious to get the input from you or someone else that has done the necessary research on Android tablets as to which the "best one" is supposed to be.
The best one is the one that does the most things you would like to do, in a stable manner.
Right now, for most people, that would be the iPad.
So the best Android tablet is an iOS tablet. Wonderful bit of logic you've got going there.
No - "tail wagging the dog" is used when a minor or secondary part of something controlling the whole. The idiom for distracting attention is "Red herring" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
A "red herring" and "wag the dog" can have very similar meanings. But they're not exclusive. The concept of a secondary part controlling the whole is what gives "wag the dog" meaning. But focusing on that is missing the significance of the concept. To "wag the dog" does, in fact, mean to create an event to distract from another event. The concept differs somewhat form a red herring in so far as it implies action while a red herring could be misinformation or undue attention to a minor detail.
As it is, this story about the RIAA might be better described as a red herring; they're focusing attention on social deviants rather than the issue of copyright enforcement. If the RIAA were wagging the dog, they would be hiring someone to pose as social deviants to generate some news with the intent of drawing media attention away from stories that the RIAA's data on the impact of copyright infringement is largely manufactured.
A false flag is something like 9/11...
Thanks for showing us just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
What we have here is a classic "wag the dog" where you use something completely unconnected to what you are trying to do to ram something through. Saudi terrorists attack New York? Blow up Iraq. What does one have to do with the other? Not a fucking thing except the first event was helpful in getting an agenda pushed.That is the difference my friend.
No - Wag the Dog is when you generate an event to distract from another event. Have you actually seen the movie?
I can see why people like to toss around phrases like "false flag" and "wag the dog". They're emotionally charged statements that invoke a lot of passion without much requirement to actually understand the concept, much less think about the application thereof. One can invoke "false flag" and get a lot of riders to jump on your bandwagon even though this situation has absolutely nothing to do with a "false flag" tactic. Kind of like what the RIAA is doing in invoking lulzsec, et al. Wait a second. I see what you did there...
I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.
Are you or are you not putting forward the claim that lulzsec and anonymous are false-flag operations? You don't get to have it both ways.
I find it amazing that people keep wanting to push around the "false flag" meme. Can't the RIAA simply be opportunistic parasites taking advantage of other's activities? You know. Like record executives.
Except the difference is, if you can't afford decent legal coverage, a well informed amateur may still be a better bet than nothing at all, and understanding that risk but using one anyway may be the difference between winning or losing. That should be your choice, not the courts.
And there's a difference between an amateur who portrays himself as a lawyer and one who portrays themselves as a doctor? The "well informed" amateur may still do just as much damage no matter how well intended (or uncaring). The issue is whether someone really does understand the risk or not. The law is there to make it very plain that someone lacks the qualifications that would otherwise suggest less risk.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't use tools like home medical guides to handle simple ailments / first-aid. In that light, I'm not saying that guides / software that help you go through basic decision paths to generate uncomplicated legal documents is a bad thing. But just because some litigious ass is hell-bent on confusing the tool with the intent to practice the trade doesn't mean we should toss out laws that limit the damage done by other charlatans.
Of course the other theory is that spam has become “less interesting” in light of other new and exciting ways of screwing with people. Once those dry up though, I think the guys with the suits will fall back on classic reliable spam to make their money.
Like most get-rich-quick industries, this just means its become more profitable to get out of the game and sell people kits to spam their way to fabulous over-night wealth. Not that its anything new in itself; that scam has been going on almost as long as spam itself.
No kidding. It's all a scam. It's like those big pharmaceutical companies. They're all in it to stop honest snake-oil peddlers from exposing the healthcare industry secrets and costing them millions.
Or... you know... maybe some pursuits require a minimal amount of preparation and licensing to show that you've managed at least that minimum less you do serious damage to someone's life by merit of fast talking alone.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
