Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Since we're here, I might as well ask: the iPad. Sure, I mean, I know 
> what it /is/, but... why? What is it /for/? Can anyone articulate a 
> coherent explanation? You can't use it as a phone, you can't easily type 
> stuff on it, it's too big to easily carry around... so what can you 
> actually do with the thing? (I agree, it is very, VERY shiny, and that's 
> cool. But there has to be a bit more than that to justify the 
> astronomical price tag...)

You can type quite well with the iPad, actually. (The iPhone is a bit more
difficult because it's so small, but it's not very difficult. Heck, there
are people who type faster on an iPhone than you type with a PC keyboard.
And they are using only their thumbs.)

The iPad is a really decent gaming platform, completely on par with the actual
modern portable consoles. There are also tons of utility applications that
you can run on it. (There are several hundreds of thousands of applications
that have been designed explicitly for the iPad. At least some percentage of
them are actually quite good, so there literally are thousands of really good
apps and games for it, most of which are explicitly designed for the big
touchscreen that the device offers.)

You can surf the internet, you can watch movies (watching a movie is as
easy as just bying it on iTunes and playing it), you can read books, you
can check your email, facebook, twitter, whatnot, you can take and edit
photos and video (there are actually pretty decent video editing software
for the iPad). You can even compose music. All these things can be done on a
decent smartphone as well, but the big screen really makes a huge difference,
especially when surfing, playing games or watching movies. (If you have ever
used the internet with a smartphone for some time, and then try it with the
iPad, the smartphone will start feeling *awful* because of the small screen.)

The device is larger than a phone, but smaller than a laptop. If you are
the kind of person who carries a laptop, the iPad wouldn't be a problem
at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I'll dig them when they come with e-ink screens and a stylus so you can actually
> write and draw (and read comfortably).

Try multitouching with a stylus.

(You *can* use the iPad with a stylus. Of course it needs to be specifically
designed for it to work with the finger detection technology, but once you
get one of those, they work quite well. The iPad has pretty accurate detection
hardware.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

Oh wait, MS is coming out with that in a few months.  With 
pressure-sensitive stylus input (something the iPad doesn't have).  Too 
bad I won't be able to afford one anymore, even if they are only $300 or 
whatever.

Actually there are a few other brands that have that, already, but...the 
MS thing should be nice.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

> Through mechanisms which I do not really understand at all [Jesus Christ
> I feel old!], it is apparently somehow possible to access the Internet
> with such a device. (Presumably that's part of why it's so damned
> expensive - along with the obvious fact that it's extremely shiny.)
>
lol Mostly, its a marriage of of a TCP/IP type network thing, which maps
your phone to their network, using an ID, and a technology patented way
back in WWII, which the woman who came up with it had intended to be
used to circumvent German attempts to scramble torpedo guidance. The
military proved to be total morons (it was rejected and never used
during the war, or even after, for decades), but the original concept
was that you have something about the size of a pocket watch, on both
the torpedoes receiver, and the transmitter, then you would feed in a
bit of paper, at the same time, into both, which was similar to a punch
card. Each "hole" would cause the frequency to change, basically hopping
from one to the next, so the enemy couldn't pinpoint which one you where
using, and jam it. The same identical, save in electronic form,
technology is at the center of cell tower systems. Otherwise, you are
just using a lot of antennae, listening to all those frequencies, then
passing data back and forth, and into the main network, via the same
sort of system the internet itself uses to work out which set of servers
to pass your information through, to get from, say from Google to you,
and to send your requests to the right places.

If anything, since cell phones are mobile, their system can't do what
the internet has done, and undermine its flexibility, by hard coding
some routes into the network paths (which is why one server can go down
now, and you can't get there from here any more). 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.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> 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.]]

isn't that merely a desktop PC with a touch screen layer upon the screen
display?

surely a failure, as touch is kinda pointless when the screen is a bit far from
your reach (and you need to rise your arms) and it simply isn't a tablet.

> Oh wait, MS is coming out with that in a few months.  With
> pressure-sensitive stylus input (something the iPad doesn't have).  Too
> bad I won't be able to afford one anymore, even if they are only $300 or
> whatever.

it's Surface, isn't it?

I still prefer my wacom "tablet".  It feels like paper.  Writing on glass is not
that fun.

Post a reply to this message

On 2012-09-02 22:24, nemesis wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Ditto.  Only thing that'd be be better is if it were thinner, and had
>> higher resolution.]]
>
> isn't that merely a desktop PC with a touch screen layer upon the screen
> display?

Actually, I'm not so much into wanting touch, unless it's smart enough 
to know that I'm laying my hand on the thing while drawing with the 
stylus.  Though being able to use the smudge tool with my finger would 
be cool.

> it's Surface, isn't it?

Think so, yeah.

> I still prefer my wacom "tablet".  It feels like paper.  Writing on glass is not
> that fun.

The good Tablet PCs use Wacom for their interface...the last Wacom 
tablet I used that was separate was the Graphire (original series), and 
I've never used anything more advanced, since that's basically what's 
inside Tablet PCs, functionality-wise.  256 levels of pressure, no 
tilt/direction sensing.

I hear the textured tablet surfaces chew through nibs like candy.  I've 
never replaced my Tablet PC stylus nib yet...

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:24:05 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> I still prefer my wacom "tablet".  It feels like paper.  Writing on
> glass is not that fun.

I concur with that.  Got myself an Intuos4 M a couple years ago and I 
really like it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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