Re: Beating browsing proper bookshop
And it's about economics as much as costs and margin.
6848 publicly visible posts • joined 28 May 2010
I didn't say it wasn't complicated and tremendously difficult. I claimed that it's half-century old tremendously complex technology and that with modern science's leaps, a well-funded organisation should be able to get a rocket to the launchpad fairly sure it will work.
Similar to nuclear reactors - they are still very difficult to make BUT compared to 50 years ago, it's not an unknown anymore.
Also why all the car comparisons?
Half silly, half serious - we've been building rockets for over 50 years, for most of that time using hugely simple computers. Our materials science and computer technology is so far beyond what was used to reach the moon, and they can't get a simple rocket to take off?
Anyone who knows any specifics and can rebut this based on solid reasons/fac - I genuinely welcome being corrected.
They can do what they like with your donations... if you don't approve don't donate.
For instance if I was a donor I'd be might peed off they took the site down (well sort of) as a SOPA protest... but I'd not have any right to claim my donation gave me any influence in their actions. Donations should not have strings attached.
>>What are the kids going to learn from these iPads that they could not learn from some cheap desktops or laptops in a computer room?
It said PRIMARY school. Kids can get to grips (no pun) with a touch interface much more intuitive than mouse+keyboard... a 2-3 year old can learn how to navigate an iPad to find which video they want to watch (a friend's kid had an obsession with Toy Story and Cars).
Kind of scary to see a toddler able to do this, but also very interesting.
Seriously, these "it's cool to diss <popular site>" and "if I don't like it then it shouldn't exist" bandwagons are really getting old. How childish can you possibly be to suggest that anything you don't want to use should cease to exist? Especially ironic/pathetic when the same people posting such drivel are lambasting the quality of information posted on FB - what my friend's cat did yesterday is FAR less dull than hearing IT geeks continually posting the exact same opinionated dross every 5min. I think the "world would be better" if you grew up and accepted different people like different things. Clearly being able to write your thoughts on a site where the world can see them has gone to your head and made you think your opinions are worth sharing.
They're not.
He comes across as a proper nerd, not really interested in the money that much. He could have sold FB for $billions in the past.
So what is his ambition? Does he really want to unite the world under FB or what? Is he wanting FB to make money, or sticking ads in reluctantly as a way to generate money so the site can survive?
Are there answers to these questions out there or only speculation?
I don't have an iPhone. But it's still a very slick device objectively speaking. All this "justify it to themselves" and "locked in" stuff is a load of balls, real people only care their phone is shiny and easy to use and that's exactly what the iPhone does.
The only reason to want 1080p video recording on a phone is so you can boast your phone has 1080p video recording. Holding the phone above your head at a gig is going to look crap regardless.
Considering how popular 16Gb iPhones with no SD support are, marking those as failures seems a bit pointless.
Multicore presumably is coming in the next version, anyone know... but note how this phone has strong battery life. Upping the CPU power only reduces that.
I see lots of people saying this, but none of them seem to explain what it does mean. So what does it mean, to you personally? Preferably in terms of simple facts rather than references to 'idiot consumers' and 'evil corporations'.
Whenever I think about the concept, I end up concluding I don't really give a damn; how did you come to the opposite answer? Ideological or practical considerations?
Targeted ads are targeted, that's why they are named as such. Which part don't you get? Maybe some people's algorithms are bad but claiming the concept of "targeted ads" doesn't target ads is absurd.
Hence I get ads for computer equipment and you get ads for Idiots Guide books.
They tried that with Buzz and Wave. Both flopped. They undoubtedly ARE constantly trying to come up with new ideas but the problem is, that is hugely difficult and you can't inspire a genius idea simply by throwing money.
You only have to look at Google and MS to see they are always doing R&D into a myriad of different things, most of which never even get reported on let alone put into production. For every gmail and google maps you can bet there are a dozen projects that never made it outside Google's offices.
Like the real names thing makes a difference. The vast majority of people want to use their real name because the whole point of a social network is to be you and find your real-life friends. Having to email phone your mate and ask "what's your ID on XYZ" is an immediate lose.
Sure a minority want fake names but they are not going to tip the balance between a mainstream site succeeding/failing.
Yes but they have revamped even the main google.com page around your personal profile and + account. + failing won't bring Google down (which technically is what betting the company on it would mean) but it is an awful lot of work wasted, which has also brought lots of criticism from unhappy users.