 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2012 15:47, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2012-09-02 13:36, Darren New wrote:
>> We have those. They're called Tablet PCs. They were a commercial
>> failure, but I love mine. :-)
>
> Ditto. Only thing that'd be be better is if it were thinner, and had higher
> resolution.
No. What would make it better is if the touch screen also served as a
flat-bed scanner. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-9-2012 16:09, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Then we come to things like Twitter. Actually, before I get into this, I
> should probably back up a bit.
>
> There was a long time when I couldn't figure out what the hell the
> /point/ of all this "social media" stuff was. This is probably partly
> because I don't have any friends. But every such site I got bullied into
> joining (required XKCD quote: http://xkcd.com/146/ ) was a complete
> waste of time. You create a profile, fill out a bunch of fields, and
> that's it. There's nothing to "do" after that.
>
> On top of this, all of these sites were /shockingly/ unreliable and
> buggy. I can't even express how useless they were. They just flat-out
> DID NOT WORK PROPERLY. I've never seen such a thing from a /website/
> before. You would have thought there couldn't be too many things that
> could go wrong with a mere web page. You would be wrong, apparently.
>
> And then I joined Facebook. /This/ actually has a point. You can use it
> to /talk/ to people. You can arrange meetings. You can share any
> interesting photos you might have. You can ask people for opinions, etc.
> I'm not the type of person to sit on Facebook all day (I have far more
> interesting things to do), but it does at least do /something/ remotely
> useful.
>
> Twitter, on the other hand, baffles me. It's, like, this huge Internet
> phenomenon. Your corporation is /nothing/ unless it's on Twitter. And
> yet... Well, let me put it this way. I once had this conversation with
> my dad:
>
> Dad: So what *is* Twitter then?
> Me: You know how on Facebook you can post your status?
> Dad: Yeah?
> Me: THAT'S ALL TWITTER DOES!!
> Dad: ...WTF?
I think you are using it wrong. probably depends on who you are following.
Over the last few days I have been warned about some articles that are
relevant to my life as a member of an international organization, been
alerted for a radio-program about something relevant, seen that the UN
is raising awareness of Chagas and today participated in a national
debate on the future of technology and education.
Never once posted a status message.
> Not only that, but the few times I've actually been on Twitter, half the
> posts are replies to other people's posts, and there is LITERALLY NO WAY
> to find out what they're replies to. (!) Seriously, the most basic, most
> immediately obvious thing, the very first thing I tried to do, Twitter
> can't do. WTF?
A typical example of something that is simple, yet apparently not
intuitive for some. Although I must admit that it might also depend on
the interface. On my mobile App it is more difficult than on the webpage.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2012 20:24, nemesis wrote:
> isn't that merely a desktop PC with a touch screen layer upon the screen
> display?
More like a laptop with a touch screen layer. What made it special was the
software, tho. Handwriting recognition that actually worked, One Note, etc.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834110486
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The same identical, save in electronic form,
> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
Well, no, not really.
That said, yeah, there's basically a modem in the phone that takes the
digital signal from your internet stack and sends it over analog radio
signals to the cell tower. All the stuff handling roaming and IP address
assignment and all that is handled at the layer below the IP layer, which
the internet doesn't even try to address, which is why you don't see things
like roaming wifi connections.
> Since the networks
> work almost exactly the same though, in terms of digital packets, its
> trivial to translate your "internet" address to a "cell" address, and pass
> the messages to the right locations.
I would phrase it more that IP is designed to be capable of being carried
over pretty much any network, and the various cell protocols are various
types of networks, so it's a straight forward mapping.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2012 22:00, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 15:47, Tim Cook wrote:
>> On 2012-09-02 13:36, Darren New wrote:
>>> We have those. They're called Tablet PCs. They were a commercial
>>> failure, but I love mine. :-)
>>
>> Ditto. Only thing that'd be be better is if it were thinner, and had
>> higher
>> resolution.
>
> No. What would make it better is if the touch screen also served as a
> flat-bed scanner. ;-)
Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
paperless society.
Or do you want to copy data from one machine to the other by stacking
them with facing screens? And why do the words *touch* screen and
flat-*bed* suddenly suggest something else.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
> paperless society.
Paperless society is a myth, but being able to scan existing documents
could help get closer to paperless, no?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
>> paperless society.
>
> Paperless society is a myth,
like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
they replaced all CRTs.
> but being able to scan existing documents
> could help get closer to paperless, no?
No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
just give me that file.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/3/2012 13:15, andrel wrote:
> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a paperless
> society.
Exactly! I used mine for record keeping while I was traveling. The ability
to slap someone else's piece of paper on it, scan it, and toss the actual
paper would be great.
> Or do you want to copy data from one machine to the other by stacking them
> with facing screens?
If the data is already digitized, I have no need to use baroque methods for
moving the data.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-09-03 18:33, Darren New wrote:
> Exactly! I used mine for record keeping while I was traveling. The
> ability to slap someone else's piece of paper on it, scan it, and toss
> the actual paper would be great.
Second only in popularity to the all-in-one printer/shredder, renowned
for removing the hassle of the middle step of needing to handle the
document.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
>>> paperless society.
>>
>> Paperless society is a myth,
>
> like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
> a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
> they replaced all CRTs.
I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
I tried to order a transcript of my college grades about a year ago. I
signed the paperwork using my Wacom tablet and e-mailed it back. The
signature was rejected - I had to print out the stupid form, sign it *in
pen*, scan it back into the computer, and e-mail it to them.
Until legal requirements are changed in society so that an electronic
signature is considered legal and binding - *uniformly* - we won't have a
paperless society, and we're no where close to that.
>> but being able to scan existing documents could help get closer to
>> paperless, no?
>
> No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
> before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
> just give me that file.
Once upon a time, I had a set of books written by the author Honoré de
Balzac that were printed in the early 20th century. I can assure you
those were not digital before being printed on dead tree.
I also have in my possession copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories and
the works of H. G. Wells, printed before digital writing systems were in
common use. In fact, I've got a fair selection of books that were
printed well before digital systems were in common use in publishing -
and the vast majority (if not all of them) of those books are not
actually considered "rare".
Can you read files in Envoy format? I've got some materials in that
format as well - good luck finding a system that can read them. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
