Apple anounced the iPad recently. The response of one corner of the Internet: http://i.imgur.com/oRffH.jpg.
through Apple’s iPad page makes it clear that they do not consider it a
stand-alone device like other tablets, but an adjunct to some other
system. What other fully fledged computer has requirements listed for
other computers (http://www.apple.com/ipad/
To be sure, form factor matters, and I suspect that there’re a
bunch of people out there that’d like something like an iPhone only
larger, and now they can get one. Except that apparently the iPad
doesn’t do voice (the 3G section of the specs says “data only”).
*sigh* Way to miss the boat, Apple.
It doesn’t hurt that it can run iPhone apps and there’re thousands
of iPhone app developers waiting in the wings. It has a pre-built
developer community and approximately zero learning curve if you’re
already an experienced iPhone developer.
My basic reaction: Meh. Sorry, Apple. 🙂 I guess I’ll stick to my Mac Pro and my iPhone.
Update 5/11/11: I got an iPad2 last month. 🙂
I wanted to run Linux on my Mac laptop, but didn’t want to pay $80 for VMWare Fusion if I could avoid it. It turns out, I could! I’m not actually done installing Linux yet, but VirtualBox seems pretty nice so far.
Not all psychopaths are criminals, some are just Grade-A Bastards. Reading these articles, I inevitably thought of people I know or used to know, and basically crossed them all off the list of “possible psychopaths”. (I’m sure you’re all pleased. 🙂 But one name did stay on the list. Happily, I don’t really “know” him, as he’s fictional: Greg House.
I’m just a tiny blog that no one reads (except you :). And yet in the past few days I’ve started getting 10-20 trackback spams a day. So I’m disabling trackbacks. *sigh*
Tips welcome on what to do about that crap.
On my old iPhone 1G (which I’ve replaced with a 3GS) it turns out you can enable “airplane mode” (so the phone isn’t constantly searching for a cellular signal it’ll never find) but still turn on WiFi. Cool.
Well, I tried to take a couple of polls at FB, and they hung up on me (perhaps because of my paranoid cookie settings), and I tried to post this on my wall, but it was too long, so I’ll just say it here:
- I support same-sex marriage, or if it can be shown that this unduly infringes the rights of churches (though I think this would be difficult), I support making civil unions and marriage legally indistinguishable from the point of view of government, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.
- I believe that the theory of evolution is probably true, in the same way that I believe that the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease are probably true. By which I mean that, like every other body of scientific thought, while it’s open to reinterpretation in ways that fit all the same facts but explain them better and predict new findings better (like what relativity and quantum mechanics did to what came before), our current idea fits the facts the best.
In no particular order (and for no particular reason …) :
Search engine: Google
Task lists: Remember The Milk (rmilk.com)
News (sort of): Reddit.com
Goofing off (definitely): Reddit.com (though lately Facebook (shudder) comes in a close second)
I’ve thought a lot about axioms (things believed to be true without proof) in the context of personal philosophy. The only one I’ve come up with so far, for myself, personally, is “I can derive accurate information about reality via my senses.” Not necessarily perfect, and not necessarily complete, but, on the whole, over time, accurate. Call this Axiom 1.
(Actually, I also include, for completeness, “I exist”. Some philosophers get touchy about this one. Call this Axiom 0.)
What axioms do you have, if any, that do not follow from this one?
As an example, I’ve considered adding to the list “Both inductive and deductive reasoning can yield valid statements about reality”, but I haven’t, because I believe you can show empirically (by observing reality with your senses) that this is true.
Update: Wikipedia points out that “observations themselves do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except inductively. In other words, observations that inductive reasoning has worked in the past do not ensure that it will always work.” In more other words, induction cannot empirically prove itself. So maybe I do have to include induction, and possibly deduction, in an axiom.