New iPad Air and iPad Mini - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/all-new-ipad-air-and-ipad-mini-deliver-dramatic-power-and-capability/ <comment><USER2> Apple's product naming is confusing.

Does anyone know what "Air" means?

I thought it used to mean smallest and lightest. But on the Mac the "MacBook" is smaller and lighter, and on the iPad we have the smaller iPad Mini, and the "iPad" is smaller and only 14 grams heavier.

From the MacBook Air line, we understood the definition to be "it's the cheap one", but that doesn't apply to the iPad line where it costs more.

So what does "Air" mean? It's there to "pad out" the product line? :/

<comment><USER3> It's really simple:

iBook became MacBook then derived MacBook Air, a thinner version

iPod derived iPod Mini, a smaller version

Ergo iPad Mini is smaller than the iPad while iPad Air is thinner than the iPad

<comment><USER4> But the iPad Air is _thicker_ than the iPad Pro. And the MacBook Air is thicker than the MacBook.

I think Apple are now simply using Air brand name on midrange devices.

iPad Pro > iPad Air > iPad MacBook Pro > MacBook Air > Macbook

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm 24 years old, work in software. Neither I nor any of my friends uses a tablet for work or pleasure. I guess I know a couple of people who have Surface Pro's, but that's about it. I'm wondering if the appeal of these begins when you get older? Seems like a lot of the market for these is people who are 50+, but I'd like to know if any people under 25 are interested in them.

<comment><USER6> I got my first iPad a year ago, suspecting I wouldn't use it for anything (and I'm nowhere close to 50). Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong. It's now my primary device for:

\- Reading and annotating books and papers in PDF format (academic research has never been easier, I use a stylus too)

\- Mounting to a tripod and recording video (e.g. professional presentations, with a lapel mic connected -- again, screen size makes it far better than a phone for reviewing a take)

\- 3D anatomy app (whether you're working on massage therapy, posture, etc. -- nobody uses printed anatomy books anymore. Phone too small, laptop doesn't have touch)

\- Playing video games (same games as on a phone, but so much better on the larger screen)

\- Watching TV/movies while traveling (you can do it on a flight on a laptop, but it's hard in an airplane seat -- this is so much easier)

\- Video calling (bigger view than phone, but more portable than my laptop)

\- Doing light work in a coffee shop (writing, e-mailing, etc.) -- I pair it with the Bluetooth magic keyboard and do my work in Mail and Google Docs/Sheets -- it's way more lightweight than my laptop and just feels a bit more civilized than a big clunky laptop

It's honestly really surprised me how I can't imagine my life without my iPad Mini anymore. Turns out there really is a sweet spot between my phone and my laptop.

<comment><USER7> Out of curiosity, what do you use for PDF annotation?

<comment><USER8> Not the OP here. I'm an outlier, I've been using 'Devon Think' for many years and have multiple Databases of PDF to read and markup and other content syncing between multiple devices.

<comment><USER9> Is devonthink a good option for storing, searching and organizing plaintext? I often make a note while pn computer and save it within a dropbox folder. I have no good way of accessing these quickly on ipad and have wondered if devonthink would solve it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is so weird that the iPad Air and iPad mini only support the old Apple Pencil. The iPad mini was my favorite incarnation of the iPad line when it came out, and I was considering getting one again, but I have no interest in needing two different kinds of iPad pencil.

Apple keeps creating _and extending_ these arbitrary transition periods. The old Apple Pencil should be in the past. Instead we have an entire other generation with it now. This sucks for developers too who have to continue designing for old technology. Same with lightning ports. Now every iPad accessory needs a USB-C version and lightning port version.

<comment><USER11> Keeping the lightning port is what really jumped out at me. Now some iPads are going to have USB C and others are going to have lightning, all under the same umbrella product of the iPad.

What is even worse (!) is that the iPhones and iPads still ship with a USB A to lightning cable, meaning even users inside the Apple ecosystem need a USB C/thunderbolt dongle with usb A ports to connect their iPhones/iPads to their computers. I have no idea how this decision was approved without thinking about this.

<comment><USER12> > to connect their iPhones/iPads to their computers

Why do you need to connect your iPad to your computer? I have never connected mine - everything goes through the cloud or Bluetooth. Are you developing apps on it? That's a pretty niche use-case.

<comment><USER11> > Are you developing apps on it? That's a pretty niche use-case.

A niche but extremely important use case, isn't it? Without app developers the platform is dead.

<comment><USER13> It's a small enough (and dependent-on-Apple) niche that "use an adapter" is something you can tell the developers to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm 39 and have been using the iPad since Gen 1, it's the ultimate media consumption device where it's effectively become my "personal TV" (since I don't have a TV). I have a keyboard attached on my larger pro model that I prefer to use over my MBP/Air when going to Cafe's or on Airplanes. But I only use it for a limited set of "productivity" tasks like writing docs, answering emails, forum and StackOverflow questions, never for writing code but have needed to use it for some emergency RDP sessions on the go.

It's also surprising how many Apps optimized UX are just nicer and more fluid to use on iOS, like News, Bank/Stock/Real Estate Apps, Houzz, Maps, Starbucks, AirBnb even Twitter/FB/Pintrest are nicer on iOS.

It's also become my parents primary computing device, they've never really felt comfortable using their iMac, Laptop or Chromebook (which are now dust gatherers), but they absolutely love their iPads. They always feel "lost" when using a PC, but never on their iPads where I believe the restrictive UI/functionality of iOS leads to more enjoyment from feeling their more in "control" of their device.

Given most people are content consumers instead of content creators it's not hard to see why the trend is towards most people using Smart Phones / Tablets as their primary computing device.

<comment><USER15> I often hand down my MBP to my parents, but given the state of the MBP line over the past few years I'm probably going to hold on to my 2015 model for quite some time yet

Which breaks my heart a bit because the model they have right now is a 2011 MBP and it's starting to show its age. Also my Dad spilled a cup of tea on the keyboard which was expensive to repair. They're not in a position financially to shell out a lot of money for Apple products, and they've squandered a lot of over the years on sub-par windows ones (not a dig at windows - just the 'buy cheap, buy twice' mantra sticks here, good quality windows laptops are expensive for a reason!)

So I'm thinking about giving them my iPad Air (2013) but I'm not sure if they'd like it, for one they tend to use the computer on their laps rather than a desk so I don't think the form factor would help, and my Dad likes to maintain a bunch of spreadsheets in open office for various things.

The only other thing (as far as I know) they use the computer for is browing the web, but it's the productivity stuff that concerns me as a laptop replacement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why did they keep the lightning connector? The Pro uses a USB-C. I wonder why they stuck with lightning for these models?

I'm an Android guy, fed up with the clunky experience on Android / Amazon tablets, and thinking of making the switch & getting an air, mainly for media consumption during business travel. The last thing I want is a unique-to-me charging adapter that I'm sure I'm going to leave in a hotel or on a plane and only realize when the battery is dying with 3 hours left in a flight. If it's USB-C, then I can just carry my phone charger (and backup) and not worry about it.

<comment><USER17> Because this is just an update of the old model; they haven't changed everything they could keep the same (see TouchID instead of FaceID) to avoid having to modify their production lines in any way, thus minimizing costs. They kept lightning because the first-gen Apple Pencil recharges using it, and putting USB-C inside of the newer iPads would have either required updating the outdated pencil to USB-C (expensive) or retrofit for the older designs the magnet latch they made for the new Apple Pencil they ship with the iPad Pros. It's just a matter of cost.

<comment><USER18> Why do you think a switch from lighting to usb-c would be "expensive"? They were part of the USB-C design committee and there's no licensing involved. From a physical change perspective lightning has only 8 lanes, USB-C has 24 - I'm confident they can find a way to make the transition pretty painless, especially since the pen only really needs to support charging by that port.

<comment><USER17> It's a matter of modifying both the logic board and the chassis to accommodate the different components. It has a reasonable cost and also requires substantial modifications to the existing accessory ecosystem and product lines. Even the smallest changes have deep and profound economical ripercussions at these scales, no matter how small they are. Companies like Apple invest a lot of money on designs and they want to stretch the amount of times they use them as long as they can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So happy the Mini didn't get discontinued as nearly everyone was assuming, with zero updates in _three and a half years_.

Interesting it still seems visually identical to the last one. So while iPhones change their "look" to be recognizably new as a status symbol (e.g. the notch), nobody seems to care about that with their iPad. (I mean, I certainly don't.)

<comment><USER19> I can't imagine using the iPad without the bezels.

With a phone you grip the phone by its back, so you can go bezelless without impacting visibility and causing too many phantom screen taps. With a tablet, however, you will usually grip it by its sides. Having the bezels is almost a necessity here.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. I'd suggest people take a look at the "Kindle Oasis" for ergonomics. Instead of backing away from bezel, they put more bezel where you'd naturally hold it and a rear indentation for grip-ability.

The device is pricey and niche, but credit where credit is due: they deserve praise for bucking market trends and just making a device really comfortable to hold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was looking for the justification of the word dramatic until I realized it's written by Apple itself. For such a headline I would rather see an independent reviewer, or editorialize it to reduce the drama.

<comment><USER22> Agreed, this just reads like an ad.

<comment><USER23> I mean, what else would you expect from a press release announcing a product release by a company? An engineering spec?

<comment><USER22> To be more specific, I'm talking about the headline on HackerNews.

<comment><USER24> That's the exact headline, which is what you're supposed to use.

<comment><USER21> Not always. From the guidelines:

> If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, > we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to > "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is > meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or > linkbait; don't editorialize.

This is not quite clickbait, and perhaps not objectively misleading either, but definitely falls in the "amazing Ys" category.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Way too diversified of an iPad line up, and that's coming from someone who really keeps up with the details.

Also, hard to fathom that it took them so many years just to launch a refreshed iPad mini, just with a minor incremental upgrade. Glad to see it happened though, but it was a missed opportunity to really make a bezel-less, beautiful mini. I'm sure it will come around soon enough.

<comment><USER26> I think we have strayed far from the Steve Jobs 4-quadrant simplicity.

He unraveled the product line when he came back to apple and famously put up 4 quadrants on the board with consumer/pro on one axis and notebook/desktop on the other.

And "Pro" seems more prosumer, like the prosumer cameras with no viewfinder or manual focus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Slightly off topic: I'd really love to see a new iPod, one that isn't a slimmed down iPhone.

I run a lot and miss the iPod Nano (7th Generation). It was a really good single purpose device. It worked perfectly and was super light.

I realize the replacement is the Apple Watch. But the Apple Watch still doesn't replace my Garmin from a running perspective.

Plus, I haven't found a pair of Bluetooth headphones that work as well or reliably as a pair of $15 Sony ear buds.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is anyone able to clarify the Pencil compatibility? This article specifically lists the 1st gen:

> Apple Pencil (1st generation) is available for purchase separately for $99 > (US).

So Apple are releasing new devices not compatible with their newer 2nd Gen Pencil?

<comment><USER28> Correct. My assumption is that Apple didn't want to spend the money to redesign the cases and add the inductive charging necessary for the newer Pencil.

<comment><USER29> The guts of the iPad itself would need some redesign for the charging hardware and attachment magnets. This seems like it's a processor bump of the iPad Pro 10.5" with the name changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Now I'm an Android user with envy. It looks like that the Android ecosystem quit the development of tablets. I don't know of any that get near the features of iPads. Do you know any good Android Tablets?

<comment><USER31> No. The Nexus 7 was a huge step but from then it went downhill.

<comment><USER32> No, Android on tablets is dead. Chrome OS will probably fill that hole but it's not there yet. (I own a Pixel Slate and using it as a tablet alone is a horrible experience.)

Go with an iPad if you're in the market for a tablet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The internal layout of the old iPad Pro was remarkably similar to the iPad Air 2 and this iPad looks very similar to the old iPad Pro.

This leads me to think that in spite of the name change, this is really the third or fourth motherboard refresh on an old assembly line somewhere in China dating back to the iPad Air 1 or 2 and first iPad Pro.

</comment><comment><USER34> Please change the headline to something more objective such as: ""New iPad Air and iPad minis announced"

<comment><USER35> From the HN guidelines:

 _Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._

<comment><USER34> The paragraph before the one you quote: "If the original title begins with a [...] gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it"

<comment><USER36> But the original title doesn't begin with one, unless you count "all-new" as a gratuitous adjective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I am not a part of the apple ecosystem, so don't see myself buying an apple product anytime soon.

But, I really wish there was a solid affordable android or windows alternative to the iPad with good pen support.

The surface Go was the closest competitor, but it was too chunky (very large bezels) and Intel's mobile CPUs are just too slow. Android on the other hand seems to have completely dropped the ball on this one.

I would kill for an updated MiPad with basic pen support.

A nice note taking and media consumption machine. Is that too much to ask for?

</comment><comment><USER38> Looking for a classroom replacement to our old iPads and it looks like the iPad mini actually has a headphone jack, so we can order it. There is no way we are going to do Bluetooth in a classroom situation.

</comment><comment><USER39> Does anyone know how much RAM this has, or will that information only come to light when it gets opened up?

I've always had the feeling that RAM becomes the limiting factor for long-life of such a device (because newer iOS/apps/websites use more and more of it - once you are healthily into multi-core you don't have to worry so much about CPU/GPU performance). I think 2GB has been around for years in non-Pro models, but 4GB also for years in Pros. Getting 2GB now seems like a step back even for a mid-range model.

<comment><USER39> Via MacRumors, supposedly 3GB:

[https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12452488](https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12452488)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I had an iPad mini, used duolingo, memrise, and watched videos on it while in the subway. The battery lasted forever. It was great but definitely not a necessity.

</comment><comment><USER41> Purchased a iPad Pro 11 a few months back & I love it—notes for meetings & personal are fantastic, reading, etc...

I would have returned that thing in an instant if apple came out with a Mini Pro. I also have a mini that I've had for years. It's the perfect size. Don't feel inconvenienced when carrying.

Damn damn damn.... maybe another year.

</comment><comment><USER42> "breakthrough pricing"?

I'm sorry, but there are generations of tablets in the sub-$300 range that were high enough end at the time. The Nexus 7 was great, I've got a Huawei tablet that's been very good (around $240 a year and a half ago iirc).

</comment><comment><USER43> Getting an A12 Bionic for $400 seems like a pretty remarkable deal to me. Is there a catch?

<comment><USER44> Probably binned / underclocked chips.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> [https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/](https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/) supports comparing up to 3 iPad model families. There are 5. That tells you...something.

<comment><USER46> >There are 5

No: there are 4

<comment><USER47> Apple thinks there are 5: 2 ipad pros, the new air and mini and the pencil/crayon supporting ipad.

<comment><USER46> I see your point now: this page, near the bottom [https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-ipad/ipad-9-7](https://www.apple.com/shop/buy- ipad/ipad-9-7) shows 5 iPads and says "Compare iPad models." This page, up top, [https://www.apple.com/ipad/](https://www.apple.com/ipad/) shows 4 distinct groups, but lumps the two Pros together. Maybe we're both correct!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Can you do any good 3d design with the pencil? Cad, sketchup, 3dfusion, blender?

<comment><USER49> I would be surprised.

The "clicking" device is not really the bottleneck in 3D design. Some people prefer normal computer mouses (high DPI), a 3D mouse (maps to 3D more directly) or touch (intuitive) but whatever.

The crucial part is key presses, all 3D software I've ever encountered can only be used in a efficient manner with _intense_ shortcut using. On an iPad, that's hard, u either sacrifice a lot of screen space for non-physical keys, or use and external keyboard, at which point a laptop/desktop is better; especially with the second key element of smooth 3D editing in mind: GPU and CPU.

<comment> crooked-v Different finger-drag combinations does cover a lot of use cases for rotation, panning, resizing, rescaling, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> A secondary answer to the question, "Why have an iPad when I have a great laptop?" is [https://www.duetdisplay.com](https://www.duetdisplay.com)

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm 36 years old. My usage for tablets (the iPad):

\- Read eBooks (yes, it is great, BUT Kindle is better for this)

\- Watch movies, netflix, etc.

\- Give to your toddler/kid on a trip as pacifier. (Yes, it is the main usage) :-)

</comment><comment><USER52> More and more I get the sense that there is a gap in the market for a device that ticks these boxes:

Ultraportable

Stylus enabled

 _Fully capable desktop operating system_

Ports to allow hook-up to external monitor

I wanted something like this as a frequently traveling and programming, conference hand written note taking engineer. Then I notice some of the designers in my office experimenting with iPads, Pencils, and Mac minis (seeing if they could depend 100% on the iPad for portable work). The main complaint has always been, why didn't they stick osx on this thing?

Devices that have come close, besides the iPad:

Acer Chromebook tab 10: stylus support great, ultraportable, but abysmal battery life and lacking peripherals to turn it into a reasonable laptop alternative. Chromeos though, with Linux Apps on Chrome combined with Android Apps on Chrome, now seems a powerful contender in this niche. USBC. Stylus built in.

Lenovo y500: ticks all boxes but ultraportable - thing is a tank. For now I swap between this and the x1 yoga on trips. Runs chromeos which means I take notes in onenote for Android, and program in a vscode for Debian binary or emacs or vim. Getting localhost to work kosher is tricky. USBC. Stylus built in.

Lenovo x1 yoga: not ultraportable, just a damn good laptop. Unfortunately, there's no good handwritten note taking app (at the level of onenote, anyway) for Linux, so I swap between Ubuntu or windows 10 depending on what I'm doing. Same for photo editing, which is a deficiency I forgot to mention for the chrome books. Usbc. Stylus built in.

Surface pro line: probably actually ticks all the boxes, I just hate programming in windows and haven't touched one of these that are powerful enough to run Ubuntu in a VM in a reasonable fashion. Also, the keyboard is awful imo. And, I don't know if they do USBC yet? That would mean no charging from the backup battery if so. Finally, the stylus isn't built in, which is obnoxious.

I've heard fun things about Linux on Android and other Samsung specific offerings that I'm looking forward to experimenting with. The hunt for this device has become a mild hobby.

<comment><USER53> > I just hate programming in windows and haven't touched one of these that are > powerful enough to run Ubuntu in a VM in a reasonable fashion.

I have a hard time understanding where this sentiment comes from. WSL is categorically better than using Homebrew on macOS. It is basically an Ubuntu userspace with apt, running directly on the Windows kernel. Using Ubuntu in a VM seems pretty superfluous when all the useful parts are already there with fully native performance. As a longtime Linux user, I am increasingly convinced that Windows is the best desktop Linux distribution.

<comment><USER54> I can't claim to know the OP's perspective w.r.t. why he / she doesn't like programming on Windows, but as an early (and current) user of the WSL I can say that I too dislike the overall experience, mostly due to how it colors my experience programming and using the system. Windows has an intensely corporate feeling to me that I can't seem to shake; it's obvious to me when I'm using it that I don't in any sense "own" my system, and that my behavior is being monitored and recorded on some level. The next update will inevitably bring some setting reversion to a pro-tracking default, and the lack of visual and system-level customization options takes a lot of the joy out of system setup, management, and exploration for me. Windows is, and always has been, a corporate productivity environment at its core, and it's very good in that role, but it feels awfully stiff and suffocating as a dev environment to me. Minor technical frictions like moving data and files between Windows land and my WSL home directory add just enough unnecessary overhead to my workflow that I find myself constantly questioning what actual value the entire thing provides. I suppose for people who are chained to specific Microsoft productivity software it's a good option, but in the absence of such a requirement I don't really understand the appeal.

To be fair, the environment is nice, and the WSL is certainly an impressive technical accomplishment (no question there!), but it doesn't have the feeling of a Linux to me. The freedom, control, and transparency just aren't there.

<comment><USER52> > and the lack of visual and system-level customization options takes a lot of > the joy out of system setup, management, and exploration

Exactly this. A good part of the joy I get in seeking out an awesome ultra- portable (and in doing so, experimenting with my mobile workflow) is the high customization I get from Linux machines. Sadly the two best portable contenders (ChromeOS and Windows) in terms of feasibility, don't meet this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Was hoping Apple would lead the way for the industry with 120hz screens. I know it takes a ton of power, but damn, iPad pro is a sweet experience.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm sad that Apple's focus has shifted away from macOS devices to iOS devices. We could have gotten MacBooks with touch-screen by now.

<comment><USER57> > We could have gotten MacBooks with touch-screen by now

I had a touchscreen laptop before and to me it was just incredibly useless. I am quite happy that Macbooks do _not_ have a touchscreen.

If I want that, I get an iPad Pro.

<comment><USER58> I always see this argument around here and Reddit. Even as a huge Apple fanboy I think it's stupid.

Touch is a great input method. Cursors are a great input method. Apple is the only computer company not offering a device with both.

<comment><USER59> The reason why apple doesn't want it is because it would cannibalize iPad sales. The reason why I don't want it is because it would either jack up the price of the macbook, or result in other components being worse to keep the price point the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> tl;dr - refreshed cpu, slightly higher rez display and apple pencil(the older variant that charges through the port) support + apple's pricing strategy continues to follow whatever data mined processes they've discovered.

then again nothing in the ipad lineup really even has a competitor anymore

</comment><comment><USER61> Can you run Linux on these machines?

If not, does anybody here have experience running Linux on a tablet?

It could make a nice experience to have a tablet instead of a laptop, so you can put the tablet a bit higher and use it with an external bluetooth keyboard. I think that would work, right?

</comment><comment><USER62> I think I'll bite. It does have a headphone jack.

</comment><comment><USER63> So it's what, a week until their next keynote speech?

There's still time for them to announce a refresh of the 12" Macbook, right?

<comment><USER64> The keynote is rumoured to focus heavily on Apple TV's new streaming service, so a hardware upgrade announcement may not be a good fit. People thought the new iPads would be introduced at that event as well, but looks like that's not happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> what's the point, if they don't allow third party browser engines. iOS on Safari is pretty horrible.

</comment><comment><USER66> Not gonna buy devices without usb-c phones/ipdas/notebooks The times when Apple had sane lineup of products is gone :(

</comment><comment><USER67> Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave.

4 separate iPad lines, plus extra screen size variation? How is an "Air" variant useful? Why does the iPad Pro have a screen size choice, but the mini is a separate line?

It should be iPad and iPad Pro, with screen size choices in each line.

<comment><USER22> Arguably you could group them as Pro and Consumer.

\- Pro: iPad Pro (11" and 12.9" \- FaceID, Bezel-less)

\- Consumer: iPad mini, iPad Air and iPad (TouchID, Bezel)

I don't see how this differs too much from Steve's approach?

<comment><USER20> If iPad Mini, iPad Air, and "iPad" were part of the same line I'd agree. You've basically grouped them as if they were (they aren't).

The Apple website is a mess:

[https://i.imgur.com/iGnlSUl.png](https://i.imgur.com/iGnlSUl.png)

A more Jobs approach would be more akin to this:

[https://i.imgur.com/R15IcVS.png](https://i.imgur.com/R15IcVS.png)

The Mini would simply be another "iPad" size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Interesting juxtaposition with the article [1]

      [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19421612]
      Pilots trained for Boeing's 737 Max airplane with "an iPad lesson for an hour" (qz.com)</comment>


My GMail password scares me with its power - <AUTHOR> http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2009/10/my-gmail-password-scares-me-with-its-power/

<comment><USER3> Forget Googles' other properties, my gmail account pasword is my password for _everything_ for the simple reason that an attacker with access to my gmail account can reset my password on almost every other web system by requesting that a password update email be sent to me.

This is one of the reasons I caved and got an iPhone with push mail notification. I want to know the moment I get a password reset email. Alas, a really clever attacker would probably read and delete the mail before I could see it.

<comment><USER4> That seems backwards. The problem isn't your gmail password getting leaked, but some other site leaking your password. If that site also has a clue about your email address, now they have access to your email, since you made them the same password.

<comment><USER5> Although you're right that websites might have access if you use the same password for everything, in this case even if you use all different passwords, you're completely blown if somebody gets the gmail password, because they can just reset all the other ones.

<comment><USER3> That was the point I was trying to make, thank you for finding a way to use one word where I used two :-)

<comment><USER6> Seems a lot of people missed the point. This wasn't about using the same password everywhere (obviously insecure) but rather, if someone _did_ get your email password it immediately defeats the security of every other service you use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it would be nice if Google provided a rsa key fob for those of us who do keep a crap ton of stuff in their gmail.

<comment><USER8> I'd pay $20-$50 year for it. I trust Google server-side security more than my own ability not compromise my own account.

<comment><USER9> I have a key fob for my _MMORPG_ character account. It seems ridiculous to me that my video game has greater security than my email or even my bank.

It was a $10 one-time fee to have the fob shipped to me.

<comment><USER10> I would love having a key fob for my bank accounts, if anything just not to have to make stuff up for the "security" questions…

<comment><USER11> Banks here are offering SMS confirmations as a 2 factor Auth. So I can transfer money to existing accounts fine - but any new account or bill requires a code that is SMSed to a pre-set number (and resetting the # requires a SMS as well)

key fob for google would be nice though. I'd be pretty tempted to pay

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I definitely support the author's suggestion that Google offer a premium RSA- style keyfob for extra security.

It would be much more secure and still have the ease of a single authentication process for all Google services.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand why someone wouldn't be able to create more than one GMail account and use separate accounts for separate google related purposes? (Use one GMail account for RSS and a seperate GMail account for App Engine, etc)

There is still the possibility that everyone you give information to is tied to a single GMail account (for your own convenience), but that is still your own fault, not Google.

<comment><USER14> Both Firefox and Safari boot you off one account when you login to another.

<comment><USER15> I use <http://cookieswap.mozdev.org/screenshots.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think we'll see Google splitting off their gmail/gtalk logins from everything else, and I don't necessarily agree that they should. One of the major benefits to using google services is the shear amount of services you get without having to login to multiple sites, or keep multiple bookmarks, google takes care of it all for you. We're slowly seeing this same idea take over the rest of the web with facebook connect and OpenID. People want convenience and don't like remembering a ton of passwords, or even having to retype a login/password on every site they go to. Ideally, for most internet users i'm sure, FB connect or OpenID or Google would take over the "login market" and include a key fob, so you just log your computer onto the internet and you're good to go. But I agree with most here, a key fob is, well, key.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not that these solve the problem, but here are some tips to help mitigate negative effects:

1\. Audit your Gmail access history. In the footer, there is a a message "Last account activity...Details". Click the "Details" link to view recent access history (web and mobile), and for the option to deauth all other sessions.

2\. Under your Google account settings, go to Security > Password recovery options. Add your cell phone number under SMS. (<https://www.google.com/accounts/ManageAccount>)

3\. Use a separate e-mail address for password resets, and just for that.

I only follow 2 out of 3 of my suggestions. I was pleased to discover the auditing and SMS recovery features, and thought I'd share them.

</comment><comment><USER18> +1 Where is OAuth integration for Gmail IMAP?

This kind of thing weighs down innovation. Take Threadsy.com for example. I'm sure people aren't thrilled about having to give out gmail passwords to make full use of their service.. It's a shame that Google hasn't addressed this yet.

</comment><comment><USER19> The article seems trivial compared to what I see as the real security risk - unrelated sites that have an "I forgot my password" option which relies on e-mail to reset the password.

If an attacker has your gmail, they can go to your bank, your stock brokerage, your retirement accounts, your credit cards, etc and say "I forgot my password" and use the e-mail access to reset those.

I hate that my bank wants me to put in "Your mother's maiden name" as a "security question" when that information is painfully easy to get (relative to password). I always enter fake information, but I really wish there was just an opt-out for the password reset feature.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why not create separate accounts for each service? If you are really security conscious, you could even have a separate password for each one.

For that matter, you might simply solve the gmail/blackberry problem by making a second account for your email, setting your primary account to forward to the second account, and setting the phone to check the second account rather than the first.

</comment><comment><USER21> The blackberry argument is exactly the place where open source is the answer. I have a python script that I fully understand (and wrote much of it myself) grabbing email data off the internet, and only it knows my password - <USER2> wouldn't dare trust proprietary software with something that sensitive.

</comment><comment> b-man I don't even know my Gmail password. I do know my KeePassX password though. It knows my 25 char passwords

<comment><USER22> I don't think it matters how secure your password is if it gets sniffed or keylogged. I have been at more than one internet cafe where I absolutly needed to login over an untrusted terminal to my mail account.

<comment><USER23> I read an interesting paper a while back (sorry, I don't remember where or what it was called) that attempted to thwart keyloggers. Their study showed that keyloggers pretty much never paid attention to the mouse. Thus their security method was to click in the password field, type a character or two, click outside the field and type a bunch of random stuff. Rinse and repeat until your password is entered. It seems pretty hackish but according to the authors it was quite effective.

<comment><USER24> I've used this method a few times at public internet terminals hoping it would work, but in the absence of evidence that it really would work I got lazy and haven't bothered most times. Good to know it's an effective extra preventative measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I agree about sharing the password, but if you want to avoid cleartext sending, just go into your settings and choose "use HTTPS for everything"...

</comment><comment><USER26> This is why I don't use Google apps much.</comment>


An Exploration of Variable Fonts (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.prototypr.io/an-exploration-of-variable-fonts-37f85a91a048 <comment> mark-r This looks like the poster child of a solution looking for a problem. It's all based on Adobe's development of Multiple Master fonts in the 1990s, and if it hasn't taken off in that amount of time I doubt it ever will.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it's fair to attribute your reasoning here.

The use of web fonts has never been greater. With more websites using non- system fonts, Variable Fonts serves to reduce page weight while providing a technical and design solution.

If a website uses more than two weights from a given font, then a Variable font would save bytes downloaded. The desire to optimize websites is not going away soon, so this will continue to be valuable.

The unnecessary design restrictions around "number of font weights" that many web developers are used to would be blown away by well designed Variable Fonts. Too often web developers are tasked with limiting a designer from using more than two fonts or choosing between a limited number of font weights.

A single font file can replace multiple fonts by utilizing the expanded design space.

Additionally, when considering non-Latin fonts, there a huge implications of using custom fonts. Font weight improvements there are in the megabytes.

Beyond the utility of font size, Variable Fonts present the concept of controlling text within a multi-dimensional design-space, rather than a pre- designated font instance. This caters new opportunities to improve readability on various display sizes.

With the growing number of contexts where people consume text (small and big screens/AR/VR/IOT) the added control provides new creative opportunity and routes for accessibility.

<comment> mark-r While a variable font does reduce the byte count when using more than 2 weights, the biggest savings come from downloading a single file rather than multiple with all the round-trip delays involved. That could have been accomplished much easier.

The biggest holdup on variable fonts is that they're simply a lot harder to design than regular fonts. The lack of usable examples will hold back the technology more than anything else.

<comment><AUTHOR> When considering that 80% or even more usage is likely a small set of fonts, you can imagine how the migration of a few fonts can be seen to make a huge impact to the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Maybe 'variable fonts' is standard nomenclature in publishing circles but I would have expected something like this to be called 'parametric fonts' or similar.

<comment><USER3> I'd expect something like "Metafont." :-)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's a bit strange seeing this described as if it's a new thing.

1982: Knuth's paper "The concept of a meta-font" is published.

1991: Adobe's "Multiple Master" fonts are introduced.

1994: Apple's TrueType GX is introduced. (Later "Apple Advanced Typography".)

2016: OpenType "variable fonts".

Maybe "variable fonts" are better than their predecessors? It's hard to tell. But it's strange for the predecessors not to be acknowledged at all.

Much more information about OpenType's "variable fonts" can be found at [https://medium.com/variable-fonts/https-medium-com-tiro- intr...](https://medium.com/variable-fonts/https-medium-com-tiro-introducing- opentype-variable-fonts-12ba6cd2369) \-- discussed on HN at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501665](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501665) . (That article does mention TrueType GX and Adobe multiple masters, but not Metafont.)

<comment> mark-r Did Knuth touch on the ability to morph between different designs of a font, or was it simply the ability to do fonts as sets of curves so that they could be resized?

Edit: never mind, I looked up the original paper and find a good description in just the first paragraph. He definitely had variations of the letters in mind.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Postmodernism is Anti-Mind (Literally) - <AUTHOR> http://steve-patterson.com/postmodernism-is-anti-mind-literally/ <comment><USER3> Many of the examples in this post are great examples of 'Modernist Art' and are decidedly not postmodern. This is roughly the equivalent of writing a post on "Functional programming is Anti-Mind" and then demonstrating that with examples from the Gang of Four Design Patterns book.

The real issue with this is that most postmodern art is incredibly accessible. You don't need an art degree to think that Roy Lichtenstein's paintings "look cool", or that Campbell's Soup cans are "neat". One of the quintessential, textbook postmodern film directors is Quentin Tarantino; there are few directors more adored by the general public. Postmodernism is a descriptive term for artists who mostly reject the Western tradition of 'High Art'. Almost all the difficulty and "unintelligibility" lies in postmodern theory, but not in the art theorists consider postmodern. And I would argue that this is because theorists themselves are artifacts of Western high culture and are therefore unable to articulate a response to something that is outside this framework.

Almost all examples of "unintelligible" art fall into some subcategory of High Modernism. High Modernist schools of thought are almost always exploring questions within the context of Western high culture(ie the "What is art?" questions), and for many of these works you need to have a background in the art in question to really engage with and understand the piece.

If you want to critique postmodernism a good place to start is Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism".

<comment><USER4> This is great! Would you say Dadaism and similar rejections are also postmodern? What about Stuckism, which rejects the idea that art is about concept and intention and should just be about pretty pictures?

Honestly, I've never found a good explanation of what "postmodern" actually means, and your examples are helping.

<comment><USER5> While I agree with the reply on the whole, many of its examples are pop art, which is a kind of shared space between modernism and postmodernism as far as art is concerned but not quite postmodernism, which explicitly rejects modernism. _But_ postmodernism originated in architecture and is more broadly a kind of 'end of history' movement, expressed not through the singular view and notion of purity of classicism, nor the idealist/utopian/revolutionary views of modernism - but through an embrace and often shocking (e.g. to notions of taste) juxtaposition of incongruent sources (e.g. classical motifs mixed with tiki references).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I love how so many of these comments revolve around the term "postmodern." This article's argument is not its title. It's the idea represented by a particular school of thinking.

Call it what you want: there is a school of thought which embraces the idea that the universe is senseless, and they claim the mind creates artificial order. You can see it in artistic work.

Obviously, this article is about that school of thought.

(which, I think you could make a very reasonable case is decidedly "post- modern." Not every representative of the school has to live in the same time frame, just like Beethoven could be called a Romantic artist, but he was a century earlier than Tchaikovsky. Nietzsche preceded the postmodernists, but his ideas fit squarely with theirs.).

<comment><USER6> Chronology's a bitch. Talk about authoritarian structure.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also love how some people think this article is a defense of anti- structuralism, while others think it's a dismissal.

As to chronology, I'm afraid history isn't on your side. One era does not end sharply as another begins. There's significant chronological overlap between schools of thought and movements in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "To put it simply: not all structure is arbitrary. Sometimes, the mind creates structure, but other times, the mind recognizes structure."

Unfortunately, the author is materialist, which causes them to miss the point that all structure is created. If the author were to remove time and space from their world view and only focus on present moment experience, it becomes impossible to find true objective structure.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ceci n'est pas une article

<comment><USER9> Cute, but this actually was an article. And Magritte's pipe wasn't really a pipe. I get the reference, but it kind of misses the point of what Magritte was trying to say with that painting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing this Steve. It hits home just at the right time. Which is to say that my mind is attempting to recognize patterns within the chaos (whether they are there or aren't there).

It also touches on a few themes from one of my favorite books, "I am a Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter...And you mention Derrida who had a profound impact on my thought process and development. La Différance did a lot for my understanding of the world. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance)

</comment><comment><USER7> "Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers."

</comment><comment><USER11> Could someone TLDR what is it all about?

I stopped reading at empty canvases, this is hardly original, first empty canvas exhibition was 90 years ago in Paris.

<comment><USER5> It's based on a faulty premise that modernism and postmodernism are the same thing and seemingly ignorant that postmodernism is a rejection of modernism. Ergo author wasted time writing the article and you saved time reading it.

<comment><USER12> Would upvote!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't really know if this is a fair characterization of postmodernism or not, but I have to wonder about the circumstances under which a total lack of structure would actually be useful in a human life? It seems like to me an interesting but not very profound observation to make that our minds traffic in structure and patterns. What alternative, I wonder, is proposed to solving problems using logical constructs?

For those that need an introduction to the finer points of POMO, don't miss this: [http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/](http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/) (don't miss the footer!)

<comment><USER14> >I have to wonder about the circumstances under which a total lack of structure would actually be useful in a human life?

I surmise it can serve as a contrasting backdrop to structure, to better the understanding of the latter.

On the other hand, it could be simply a childish rebellion against the paternalistic oppression of structure and reason.

Or... it can also be a method for newcomers to dislodge the old guard - <USER2> undermining their work, you might be able to undermine their social stance and gain some of it for yourself.

<comment><USER15> Postmodernism is more insidious than rejection of authority/structure. Authority tends to be straightforward. Postmodernism says there is no authority, but you know very well there is authority but you have to find it out yourself and be sure you are correct in your conclusion of authority or structure.

It's like when you ask someone for an appropriate gift for an occasion and they say, 'oh, you'll figure something out' instead of telling you what would work. I mean, it's not as though 'anything' would be accepted, but now they are putting the onus on you to get it right.

So rather than being liberating, it can be debilitating.

<comment><USER16> That 'It's all equally meaningless, so here's some cultural irony' shtick gets wearing after a while.

It had its day in the late 80s and early 90s. Only academia is keeping it alive now. You pretty much have to be able to quote Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault to get a humanities professorship - which is, not nearly ironically enough, not a good thing, IMO. (See also: Postmodern Critical Theory.)

But I think rest of world, including rest of art world, has moved on already.

<comment><USER12> Have you read any Derrida, Lacan or Foucault?

<comment><USER16> Too much. Far, far, too much. :)

I prefer Bourdieu, who seems to be tragically underrated in academia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > All of our thoughts require language

No. A very concrete example of this for me was when my dad and I designed a ladder-chair(1). We both had pencils and drew the views and measurements on a single piece of engineering paper over the course of 45 minutes, I think with maybe a dozen sentences spoken. But clearly each hand was responding to the other's lines.

(1) [https://www.flickr.com/photos/niels_olson/sets/7215759452966...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/niels_olson/sets/72157594529666741/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Hilarious when people still write articles declaiming postmodernism when it has been dead in continental philosophy for at least 15 years.

<comment> guard-of-terra On the other hand, can't you still say most of new art around us is post- modern?

Because else what would it be? Have we got anything after postmodernism?

This is what makes article hilarious. It is a post-modern piece bashing what it claims to be postmodernism.

UPD: In that respect, saying "I don't like postmodernism" looks as "I don't like air" That's what you've got. For today.

<comment><USER18> > On the other hand, can't you still say most of new art around us is post- > modern?

No. Well, you can, but its equivocation: its certainly something that arises in the period after the height of the movement called "modernism", hence, it is "post-modern" in that sense, but its not part of the particular movement which has been labelled "post-modernism".

> Because else what would it be? Have we got anything after postmodernism?

Yes, in both art and philosophy, there are a number of contemporary movements that are active, many of which postdate postmodernism in their origins.

<comment> guard-of-terra You don't have to label yourself postmodernist. Your own opinion about the direction of your art is irrelevant.

The thing is: we haven't got anything that is not post-modern. Postmodernism is about going in circles in my opinion, and that's what we do. Can't break out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know. By this logic ("Who's to say what is art and what is not art?") even my pictures of stick figures can be considered art. Except that no, sorry, they're not art, and I'm not an artist.

Roy Lichtenstein asked himself "What is art?". And when he took pictures out of instruction manuals and newspaper advertisements (and, later, comic books) and reproduced them on canvas he said "Ok, I took something mundane, something mass-produced, something you see every day all around you, and I reproduced it here on canvas, using tools and techniques that artists use, I painted each of the Ben-day dots by hand, and is this now somehow not mundane? Is it now art?". And when I see one of his pictures a voice in my head says "Yes, this is art."

When I see a canvas painted black (or a shark in a tank, for that matter), that voice says "no".

<comment><USER19> Interesting.

How about blue? No? What about International Klein Blue[0][1]? Maybe yes? Just goes to show. I would say that the first deliberate black canvas, yes. After that, no. Derivative :)

Shark-in-a-tank[2]. The contemporary work of art people don't think is a work of art. I wonder why that is? The title alone is intriguing, "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". The formaldehyde gives it a distinctive hue. The vitrine is divided into three rather like a triptych. It's outrageous something gave its life in the creation of this work though people have been worked to death for far more mundane tasks. I don't like shark-in-a-tank, but it's art I'm afraid.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue)

[1] [http://www.themilanese.com/?p=6939](http://www.themilanese.com/?p=6939)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of_Someone_Living)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > I mean, upon analysis, postmodernism tries to escape or reject the > traditional function of the human mind.

I mean, upon analysis, postmodernism tries to escape or reject the traditional _perspective on_ the human mind.

</comment><comment><USER21>

</comment><comment><USER22> This article seems to posit that being "anti-mind" is a bad thing. I don't know that it is the case.

</comment><comment><USER23> What comes after postmodernism? Postmodernism++?

<comment><USER24> There are multiple schools for thought currently vying for that position, but transmodernism seems to have the most traction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Based on his picture, Steve Patterson is one of the younger grumpy old white men I have seen. He has also rediscovered that "Screw you, rules. I'll paint whatever I damn well choose" is an attitude contained inside of art.</comment>


Chess grandmaster gets tricked into a checkmate - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voa9QwiBJwE#t=8m57s

<comment><USER2> Great video. Enjoyed his reaction:)</comment>


TypeScript and the Road to 1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/typescript/archive/2013/10/17/typescript-and-the-road-to-1-0.aspx

<comment><USER2> I actually want to commend Microsoft here for releasing an open-source (and permissively-licensed!) compiler that doesn't run exclusively on its own proprietary platform.

The language itself seems like a winner as well. Its conservative design makes it the perennial dark horse of the compiled-to-JS language family, but that's also what makes it most attractive to me. It's a thin-enough skin over the underlying language that you get the familiar Javascript syntax (as per Dart) while also retaining the ability to understand the generated code (as per Coffeescript). It's also got well-defined corporate backing, which in a professional environment gives me more peace of mind than recommending Coffeescript (does jashkenas get paid to do this?), Clojurescript, or Elm (I'm somewhat concerned about Dart here as well, at least until Google starts using it in production). These properties mean that I'd happily recommend TypeScript for client-side enterprise software development (but only once the compiler hits 1.0, of course).

<comment><USER3> I can't speak for CoffeeScript or ClojureScript, but Evan Czaplicky _does_ get paid to work on Elm: [http://elm-lang.org/blog/announce/Elm-and- Prezi.elm](http://elm-lang.org/blog/announce/Elm-and-Prezi.elm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really love TypeScript because one of the projects goals is to become redundant one day. They're building what they hope JavaScript will get to evolve into.

<comment><USER5> That's not entirely true. While TypeScript is closely aligning itself with the proposed ES6 syntax for classes and modules, there is no expectation that ECMAScript will add optional static type checking. If you want statically typed JavaScript you are always going to need something like TypeScript.

With that said, as ES6 evolves and becomes more widely supported there will be aspects of the TypeScript compiler that will no longer be needed (e.g. classes, modules, fat arrow functions, etc.).

<comment><USER6> > If you want statically typed JavaScript you are always going to need > something like TypeScript.

I think that is a valid statement only within the context of the next ECMA release. In other words, that's not to say that whichever successive version after ES6 can't include it, or any version thereafter.

<comment><USER7> You could make that argument about any missing feature. I haven't seen any serious support for optional typing in JS; so at this point it would be fair to say that GP is correct.

<comment><USER8> Well, there once was a forlorn EcmaScript version, aka ES4, which included rather similar concepts ( [http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf](http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf) ) :

> Structural function types describe functions and methods. The type

> function (int, string): boolean

> describes a Function object that takes two arguments, one int and the other > string, and which returns a boolean

Given that a great many other concepts from ES4 are finding their ways into ES6, it is not implausible that this one may also reappear into a more consensual specification someday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me the fundamental shortcoming for javascript is not its typelessness, it's the lack of language syntax support for asynchronous programming, which is the butter and bread for most javascript applications (server or client side).

I really hope I can do something like

for (

      ra <- asycn_opA(),

      rb <- async_opB(ra),

      _  <- asycn_opC(ra, rb)

).run()

<comment><USER10> So if you used Q or a similar library:

      Q.async(function*() {
        var ra = yield opA();
        var rb = yield opB(ra);
        yield opC(ra, rb);
      })().done();

Are you wishing for the other syntax or something that you can't achieve with generators/promises today?

<comment><USER11> Fortunately, with a bit of hacking, this style of syntax is possible without generators :) (I'm hoping to open source a library I wrote that works all the way back to IE6)

Here's your example rewritten in the 'monads' library (I probably need a better name):

monads(function() { var ra = opA.defer(); var rb = opB.defer(); var result = opC(ra(), rb()); });

<comment><USER12> Is that open source? I'd be interested in taking a look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does optional typing really work? I've always felt (or presumed) that once you start putting types in, it kinda starts spreading everywhere and eventually will look like full static typing. I'd rather have tests than types.

It is good to see people try different things though, so congrats on release.

<comment><USER13> If it spreads everywhere then that is because it is valuable everywhere. With optional typing you decide where types have the most value, so there really isn't a downside.

You are probably going to end up using types a lot if you are using projects that already have type declaration files available (from the DefinitelyTyped project).

<comment><USER14> > If it spreads everywhere then that is because it is valuable everywhere.

Well, there is a downside in that you're now having to choose between adding type annotations where you don't particularly want them or ignoring compiler errors (warnings?). The former puts types everywhere, the latter partially defeats the purpose of static typing and adds "sort out the errors I care about" as another work duty.

My understanding is that with typescript you can use .js/.ts files as a relatively coarse mechanism of segregating out your untyped code, but it isn't entirely roses.

<comment><USER13> > ... choose between adding type annotations where you don't particularly want > them or ignoring compiler errors ...

That is just not the case. Types get inferred. If the inference isn't making it all the way through that means you have dynamic types, not a compilation error.

And yes, ignoring warnings is crazy. TypeScript has very few warnings, mostly just errors that can't be ignored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> james-manning Sorry if this comes across as somewhat tangential, but I'm still wondering if/when we'll have JavaScript runtimes (V8, Chakra, SpiderMonkey, whatever) that can export runtime type information, even if only enabled in a 'debug' mode?

I love the idea of optional typing being supported (whether in the base language or TypeScript/Closure/etc) but it's maddening to think of trying to have to add the type information manually to existing code, especially code with lots of good test coverage, knowing that the JavaScript runtime seems to have to figure it out anyway (at least based on talks about V8 from the past).

This kind of functionality seems even more important for projects like DefinitelyTyped, where people are trying to track the public API's for projects that sometimes have a lot of churn. Having runtimes export their runtime type information (which seems to have sufficient mapping to source based on existing debugger experiences in Chrome, IE10+, etc) and allowing the creation of tooling that can populate/check/etc the type information in source seems like a big potential win.

Anders asking the Chakra team for this to (massively, AFAICT) help TypeScript adoption among existing projects seems reasonable, but TypeScript type information seems to still be 'add it yourself' for now?

Am I just missing something that makes this far more complex/difficult/intractable than I realize?

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the one think that TypeScript needs to get it going is modularity. If another project like [harp]([https://github.com/sintaxi/harp](https://github.com/sintaxi/harp)) could use TypeScript as a library and could compile the code without having to result to system commands would be a great thing.

However, I think if someone came up with a system to add optional typing through the use of string literals it would be awesome. That way we can have perfectly valid JavaScript with the benefits of certain JavaScript engines and type checkers. The string literal would be before a function declaration like:

        "add(Number, Number) -> Number";
        var add = function(x, y) { return x + y; };

That would basically specify that the function takes two numbers, and returns a number. This system would not replace a language like TypeScript, as TypeScript provides much more functionality. But it would allow for really simple optional typing and for TypeScript to take advantage of this(in the case that a JavaScript engine eventually implements and optimizes for these type declarations).

<comment><USER12> The TypeScript compiler can be used as a library, I believe.

The Closure Compiler has a whole type system that lives in doc comments:

[https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/js- for-c...](https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/js-for- compiler#types)

and I believe there's a command line option for doing type checking. Alas, Closure Compiler is written in Java rather than JavaScript so you can't use it quite as seamlessly as TypeScript's compiler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hope they'll integrate a JavaScript debugger to TypeScript and Visual Studio, possibly with source mapping. (I would specifically need Node.js debugging).

I also hope that they make a better module system.. currently it's pretty confusing and I don't really know how to differentiate between TypeScript and Node.js modules.

<comment><USER17> Visual Studio allows you to debug TypeScript directly with source maps if you install the free plugin: [http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=3479...](http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=34790)

<comment><USER16> What debugger is that using? Note that I'm not looking for debugging browser- side TypeScript/JavaScript code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I couldn't be more underwhelmed by what TypeScript has to offer vs vanilla JavaScript or CoffeeScript.

Reading through the marketing material from MS it seems like the entire value proposition is "statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program, also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost"

I suppose if you believe those claims or are really interested in using MS development tools, TypeScript is for you.

IMO, ClojureScript is much more interesting and has a far greater value proposition for complex front-end development.

<comment><USER6> Are TypeSscript and CoffeeScript really that much different?

From what I understood, they both basically solve the same problems, one just does it in a Ruby-esque style while the other does it in a C#-esque style.

<comment><USER19> I use CoffeeScript in my day job for the last 2 years.

I've been using TypeScript in my startup the last 6 months.

They are definitely not the same. TypeScript is JavaScript + types, whereas CoffeeScript is a new language, a mashup of Ruby and JS. (For example, you can take any JS on the web, paste it in a TypeScript file, and it will compile. But you absolutely cannot do this in CoffeeScript.)

CoffeeScript tries to do clever things for you, which often results in inefficient code. For example, say you've got a function that ends with a for loop. CoffeeScript will actually convert that into an array allocation and return the result of the array. (Looping over 1000 elements at the end of a function? CS just allocated a new array which will be dynamically resized at runtime multiple times, allocated 1000 buckets for the elements.)

CoffeeScript also can't make up its mind about whether parens are necessary. Function with multiple params? Not necessary. Chained function, like jQuery? Necessary. Most of the time. Function with no params? Necessary, unless you use the 'do' syntax.

It's a mess.

TypeScript, on the other hand, is designed by respected, experienced language designer Anders Heijlsberg. His language wisdom and overall vision for the language shines through.

Bottom line: Both are better than vanilla JS, I'd say. But I work with CoffeeScript when I have to. I work with TypeScript because I choose to.

<comment><USER20> I've used both extensively and I'd disagree with you on almost every point.

> _For example, you can take any JS on the web, paste it in a TypeScript file, > and it will compile._

This myth won't die.

False. Typescript will choke on most JavaScript files from the web. Because you will need to include definition files for any external library calls. If you use jQuery, for example, the compiler won't like your $('.class').doStuff() calls because it won't recognize it until you go find the jquery.d.ts file to include at the top of your file. Also, TypeScript will struggle with the dynamic-ness of JavaScript. To prove this to yourself, paste the contents of typeface.js into the play compiler at www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/ and you'll see all the red squigglies that you have to fix.

On the other hand, if you can do it in JavaScript, you can do it in CoffeeScript, because CS is NOT statically typed. You can use js2coffee to convert any valid JS on the web to coffeescript.

In my testing it takes me 25 times longer to take legacy code and convert it to TypeScript than to convert it to CoffeeScript. That's because "valid JavaScript is NOT valid TypeScript."

> _CoffeeScript tries to do clever things for you, which often results in > inefficient code._

I find that CoffeeScript's results are BETTER than the TypeScript code. For example, CoffeeScript automatically does array length caching in it's for loops, resulting in much faster loops. It also correctly converts == to === in comparisons, eliminating many nasty JavaScript bugs. TypeScript does neither. In my analysis, TypeScript generates poorer code than CoffeeScript.

> _CoffeeScript also can 't make up its mind about whether parens are > necessary._

Use them all the time if you want, CS isn't dogmatic about it. EcmaScript 6 (and TypeScript too) will be moving toward optional parentheses too. It's a nice feature.

> _TypeScript, on the other hand, is designed by respected, experienced > language designer Anders Heijlsberg. His language wisdom and overall vision > for the language shines through._

Anders has done a fine job of making TypeScript look like C#. It's one redeeming trait is that it helps the tooling for allowing refactoring and intellisense. I find it cumbersome and you have to put a lot of ceremony into your code just to get it working. It is roughly 35% more lines of code to do the same thing in TypeScript that you could do in CoffeeScript, and you are fighting the compiler more often. I think TypeScript would be an incredible burden for enterprise applications because of the need to include definition files. Think of the joys of upgrading your version of jQuery and having to find the jquery.d.ts file to go with it.

I recently presented a talk at a conference on the two languages and after evaluating both languages in depth, CoffeeScript was the clear winner. Both in the code it produces, but also the amount of effort to develop in it.

<comment><USER21> TypeScript appears to compile even in the face of undefined variables.

Just went to the playground and dropped a random jQuery sample in: [http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/#src=%24(%20documen...](http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/#src=%24\(%20document%20\).ready\(function\(\)%20%7B%0D%0A%20%0D%0A%20%20%20%20%24\(%20%22a%22%20\).click\(function\(%20event%20\)%20%7B%0D%0A%20%0D%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20alert\(%20%22Thanks%20for%20visiting!%22%20\)%3B%0D%0A%20%0D%0A%20%20%20%20%7D\)%3B%0D%0A%20%0D%0A%7D\)%3B)

You get squiggles yes, but you also get valid javascript. So it looks like you can paste random javascript into TypeScript and get it to compile. I went and tried with the actual compiler (to make sure it's not some artifact of the playground website), and confirmed you get a proper .js file out (and 2 messages, about $ being undefined).

Quick google makes it sound like getting rid of the squiggles / messages is pretty easy: [http://stackoverflow.com/a/12755602/80572](http://stackoverflow.com/a/12755602/80572)

I'm not sold on TypeScript yet (or any of the transpiled javascript languages, honestly), but this:

> False. Typescript will choke on most JavaScript files from the web.

Seems to be the actual false statement in this thread.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for trying that out the jQuery example. They look to be making the compiler (or the playground site) more permissive lately. This didn't work in May when I last tried it out.

I've used the typescript compiler on a randomly-chosen JS library (typeface.js [http://typeface.neocracy.org/typeface-0.15.js](http://typeface.neocracy.org/typeface-0.15.js) ) and it had dozens of compiler errors for me to fix before it would compile. The playground is now accepting them for some odd reason. This seems to be recent behavior or perhaps the node.js version of the compiler behaves differently?

<comment><USER22> One thing that threw me off initially is the fact that typescript will complain about errors, but still do the translation of TS -> JS. For example:

        var s = 'hello';
        s.toExponential();

Typescript tells you about the obvious error that there's no property 'toExponential' on strings, but it also merrily produces yourfilename.js.

In my experience so long as you don't have any syntax errors, tsc will give you back javascript. This is partly because the translation from typescript to javascript is incredibly straightforwards and ignores the types completely. Writing a nonvalidating, dumb but super fast ts -> js transpiler is about an afternoon's worth of work, especially if you bootstrapped from the typescript parser and tests.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


81-year-old Donald Knuth releases new TAOCP book, ready to write reward checks - <AUTHOR> https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/12/08/0155206/81-year-old-donald-knuth-releases-new-taocp-book-ready-to-write-hexadecimal-reward-checks <comment><USER2> Pre-ordered from Amazon. God bless Don Knuth.

Off-topic:

Whoa, I just logged into my slashdot account for the first time in probably 12-13 years. In the late 90s and early 2000s it was quite the site.

I remember following the comments in real time of the September 11 attacks on the U.S.

[https://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1314258/world-trade- towe...](https://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1314258/world-trade-towers-and- pentagon-attacked)

Neal Stephenson recounting his battles with William Gibson.

[https://slashdot.org/story/04/10/20/1518217/neal- stephenson-...](https://slashdot.org/story/04/10/20/1518217/neal-stephenson- responds-with-wit-and-humor)

And the trials and tribulations of poor Jon Katz.

[https://news.slashdot.org/story/00/02/07/0717247/interview-a...](https://news.slashdot.org/story/00/02/07/0717247/interview- ask-jon-katz-almost-anything)

<comment><USER3> Interesting taking the answer to question 3 and then to contrast it with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall;_or,_Dodge_in_Hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall;_or,_Dodge_in_Hell)</comment></comment>


Matt Cutts' blog labeled as low quality - <AUTHOR> http://twitpic.com/4n92l5/full Those sites over his site in results are scrappers and outrank his site. Makes you feel bad for those that had to lay off employees due to Panda. <comment><AUTHOR> Scrappers are ranking higher than him for snippets of his own article after Panda. Google called the sites affected as "low quality," or junk. Many people have lost their livelihood over Panda and Google's incompetency so it's not funny, but this is.

</comment><comment><USER2> How is that labeled as low quality ?

Sorry, don't get it.

Could you explain please?

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing because people who are citing Cutts' article are appearing in the search ranking ahead of him.

<comment><USER2> Ahh...I see.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Logs of server apps. How expensive are yours? Do you capture debug log? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Using GAE, you have access to Stackdriver applications which provide everything from monitoring to logging which have pretty large free usage caps.</comment>


How Steve Ballmer told me what to do with my iPad - <AUTHOR> http://www.markwilson.co.uk/blog/2010/10/how-steve-ballmer-told-me-what-to-do-with-my-ipad.htm

<comment><USER2> Okay guys, I've got to come out with something here. I'm kind of a lurker on HN so I don't really say much...but I need to say something before I continue with my comment here: I really love Microsoft products.

The (fledgling) start up I'm working on is built on .NET. I'm a BizSpark member and my 9 to 5s have all been in .NET shops. My senior project in college was written on .NET which led me to contracting at Microsoft for a while while I finished my degree. And while I was there I was continually impressed by the quality of the people I interacted with and how dedicated and passionate they were to and about their technologies.

I can talk all day about what I like and what I don't like about specific technologies they put out but my comment today isn't on the quality of their products. It is on Steve Ballmer's atrocious presentation skills.

The way this man talks is like a marketeer in that doesn't really "get" technology and dances around the technical aspects with marketing speak and hand waving. He cannot afford to continue to deny that his competitors are beating the _shit_ out of them in a number of markets that they oh-so-badly want to participate in but just _cannot_ execute in for one reason or another. And beyond that, in 2010, when your CEO competition is Zuckerberg, Jobs, and Schmidt, you really _really_ can't afford to not really get technology.

Microsoft if you're out there, if you're listening to me, please for the love of the gigantic, rich, strong community that surrounds your company and technologies, please PLEASE eject Steve Ballmer. He's been slowly sinking the ship for 10 years (yes, it is mostly his doing) and you can't keep this up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft conference attendees can all laugh at the poor iPad user bent over an obviously flawed form factor when they should be using one of those tablets with flip-around keyboards that have been out for 10 years running Windows.

And everyone at WWDC can laugh all the way to the bank every time Apple sells another million iPads.

The customers have spoken. Is denial really Ballmer's best option at this point?

<comment><USER4> The same argument says Windows is the best desktop/laptop software. "The customers have spoken."

<comment><USER5> Yes, when Android first launched it was very interesting to see Apple users use phrases like 100,000 apps in the app store and dominant market share, and how these have changed as they were overtaken.

Mac users were always defending the boutique, specialist, quality over quantity arguments on the desktop and then suddenly it was all a numbers game for a while there.

<comment><USER6> "Mac users were always defending the boutique, specialist, quality over quantity arguments on the desktop and then suddenly it was all a numbers game for a while there.".

The truth is, that the kind of people who say things like that are the kind of people who look for opportunities to argue about that kind of stuff and your statement reads like you have a clear bias. That's not a very objective perspective to my mind.

-sent from my iPad

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure if your post was meant to be humorous or unintended irony.

<comment><USER6> Completely intentional.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ballmer's incompetence is compounded when he talks shit. Its like The Emperor's New Clothes, except its been going on for so long that everyone knows hes not wearing invisible robes. All, apparently except for Bill G and the others on the board of directors that keep him gainfully employed.

<comment><USER9> Look, did this really go beyond a gentle ribbing? Ballmer is a big character, who is supposed to make these grand sweeping statements. I don't know how much we can draw from this.

<comment><USER8> Yes and he has done it numerous times.

Ballmer talking shit about the iPhone - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So7qrFO_p44>

<comment><USER2> "Talking shit" is part of being in competition with a company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of the reddit Q&A with the IE9 guys ... they (Microsoft) don't realize that they're no longer the ones defining where technology goes and as a result they'll keep missing the boat on the technological trends that are shaping the future.

Its going to be very satisfying to watch them eventually realize they've been left behind.

<comment><USER2> > they (Microsoft) don't realize that they're no longer the ones defining > where technology goes

Actually, this is a really good point. In 1985 Microsoft was Facebook and Microsoft continued to be Facebook-y 'till, what, 2002?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm amazed at how many words can come out of Ballmer's mouth without him having actually said anything...

<comment><USER12> You shouldn't be. It's quite normal. If someone recorded and then transcribed normal conversation of your's (or anyone else's), you'd be appalled at it. I know I was when mine was recorded! Someone once complimented Cary Grant by saying he wished he could be as witty and suave as Cary was on screen. Cary replied that he wished he could be, too.

There's a good reason why politicians carefully script and rehearse their remarks in advance, even the supposedly 'extemporaneous' ones.

<comment><USER13> Well compare it to the utterances from the "other Steve" (Jobs) who takes brevity to the point of terseness. Compare, for example his D8 interview with, well, _anyone_ else's.

Ballmer is a disaster for Microsoft and living proof of why you should have a product guy (not a business wonk) in charge of a technology company.

<comment><USER14> Well put. For reference, the transcript of the D8 interview with Steve Jobs: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-live- from-d8/?...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-live- from-d8/?sort=oldest&refresh=0)

Selected quotes:

[On competing with Google] "We want to make better products then them. What I love about the marketplace is that we do our products, we tell people about them, and if they like them, we get to come to work tomorrow. It's not like that in enterprise... the people who make those decisions are sometimes confused."

"We never saw ourselves in a platform war with MSFT, and maybe that's why we lost."

[On tablets replacing laptops] "I'm trying to think of a good analogy. When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks. But as people moved more towards urban centers, people started to get into cars. I think PCs are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this is going to make some people uneasy."

<comment><USER15> Did Jobs prepare those statements? Probably. Caching is the secret to articulacy. I think the human brain is just too damn slow to come up with really good things to say on the fly. You have to know about it, think about it, talk about it. Again and again. You have to know what people will ask you.

I think that even if you are a bad public speaker you can compensate with good preparation. You can fine tune and cache your answers. It's hard work but it pays off.

<comment><USER16> I also think it's because Steve Jobs thinks about that kind of stuff all the time. It's something he's genuinely interested in.

If you ask me a difficult and deep question about a topic I think about all the time, I'll probably come up with a nice and concise answer.

I really think a good CEO is someone envisioning the future all the time. That's what makes the difference. Once you know where you should go, execution comes naturally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >My netbook has to be coaxed through the day with Wi-Fi switched off in order to get more than a few hours out of the battery; my 15″ laptop only goes 2-3 hours between charges (newer models may be better, but I can't change laptops at the drop of a hat); meanwhile, I find the iPad easy enough to type on in landscape mode, it turns on/off instantly and, after 8 hours taking notes and tweeting yesterday, it still had an indicated battery charge of 55%.

Sounds like this guy's real problem is battery life (and, to a lesser extent, slow resume from sleep), not keyboard vs. no keyboard. The iPad gets 16 hours or whatever in part because it has a 9.7 inch screen compared to his laptops 15 inches or so. My netbook with a 10.5 inch screen gets 8 real hours of battery life.

So yes, keyboardlessness is good insofar as it enables you to have a tiny screen (since a tiny screen with a usable size keyboard would be awkward). But I only use my netbook 6 or less hours a day, so for me I easily trade the difference between 8 and 16 hours for a real keyboard. As battery life gets better, that will make sense for more people, _unless_ keyboardless entry starts making big progress (which is possible). But even then, I'd still rather have a larger screen and $200.

<comment><USER18> I like how you parenthesized:

 _(and, to a lesser extent, slow resume from sleep)_

That's no small thing. Not only does this change the usability of the machine _tremendously_ , it has quite a big bearing on battery life. In fact, battery life is directly affected by how it is used.

The iPad can be used in a way which is fairly close to how one would use a notepad. You click the "sleep/standby" button and off you go. The netbook/laptop is a _workstation_ and so wants to soak up all of your attention for some interval of time.

Also, I bet that that $200 advantage is going to disappear in short order.

<comment><USER17> > That's no small thing

I'm not saying it's a small thing. This isn't a netbook vs. iPad argument. I'm saying the resume-from-sleep speed has to do with good Apple engineering, _not_ the keyboardless form factor (which is what the OP was defending).

<comment><USER18> You have a good point there. I think if someone could engineer a tablet with a good instant-flip-up keyboard form factor, then this would be a big hit. It would have to be as fast and easy to use as slide-out keyboards on current smartphones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _"I was also juggling a camera (on my Nokia phone), a voice recorder (on my iPhone) and taking notes/tweeting on the iPad whilst listening to Mr Ballmer."_

That strikes me as a lot of redundancy. So, I see Balmer's point when he said, "I think we can make life a little simpler for people, if we do the right job."

<comment><USER20> Words are cheap. Everyone here knows it's about delivery. So all Ballmer needs to do now is execute. Personally, I don't think he has the ability. He's a sales' dude. A one-trick pony. A wealthy one-trick pony, but not a CEO or business leader.

<comment><USER19> > _"Words are cheap."_

Yes, I would have to agree.

Indeed, Balmer's use of the conditional, "if we do the right job," might signify he has made similar observations, and perhaps be taken as evidence that Balmer is not cut from the same cloth as some other CEO's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The article doesn't deliver what the title promises: Steve Ballmer telling someone what he should do with his iPad.

It's more of a fluff sentimental piece about a guy operating multiple gadgets while not sitting down comfortably.

<comment><USER22> "You can bend over, too" was a pun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I recently went from a 2007 MacBook to a Lenovo X201 with 9-cell battery, and it's worth pointing out that the much-improved battery life (3-5 hours -> maybe 6-9), lower weight (5.5 pounds to 3.5) and heat (uncomfortably warm -> barely noticeable) have made a _huge_ difference in how I use it. Even the size difference, though not quite as dramatic, is very noticeable.

I used to really debate whether or not I needed my computer when I left the house, but now I tend to not think about it (3.5 pounds is pretty negligible, where 5.5 was verging on uncomfortable to shoulder), and I need to worry a lot less about preserving battery power than I used to. In that respect, I definitely see the argument for the iPad in his situation (though it's still apples to oranges), but if what he really wants is a long battery life and portability, there are pretty viable options out there that are still full- fledged computers.

<comment><USER24> I've felt the same way with my netbook. The older HP laptop I used to use was pokey, got about 1.5 hr. of battery life at best, heavy as lead, and hot enough to grill meat. Now I use a 10.1" netbook, weighs just under 1kg, only gets warm with heavy use, and lasts 8hr on battery (or more if you're just reading from Kindle for PC). It's definately changed how I think about mobile computing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Media Center is big and, when people say 'hey, we could optimise more for clients' I think what they generally mean is 'Big Buttons'. Big Buttons that's, I think, a codeword for Big Buttons and Media Center is Big Buttons not Little Buttons."

So wait... Will there be Big Buttons?

Aside from that, it feels like He's focusing on this one area of UX design. I hope this doesn't forecast an imbalance in the experience of the finished product.

It reminds me a little of Web 2.0:

"Web 2.0 is shiny and rounded, and when people say `shiny and rounded' they really mean `shiny and rounded buttons.'"

<comment><USER26> I think he's using "big buttons" as a shortcut for the difference between highly rich, detailed interfaces which present many options all at once, and more "simplified", more intuitive interfaces which present fewer options, but where more work has been done to ensure they're the options you really, really need.

At least, I hope he is. This is Ballmer, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there any point in this post beside of the fact Steve Ballmer mentioned about this guy vaguely in his talk?

</comment><comment><USER28> Economics is like gravity. It doesn't care if you believe in them. Either way you're headed for a fall.

</comment><comment><USER29> _...touch applications which we will encourage people to write._

This seems like a very telling phrase. If they partner with someone to build a great tablet device, running a great Windows OS, they won't need to encourage development for it - the demand will be obvious.

</comment><comment><USER30> Every time I read what comes out of Steve Ballmer's mouth I wonder if that guy has ever touched a computer. Microsoft's employees need to acquire some parrots and eye patches. It's mutiny time.

</comment><comment><USER31> That's particularly sad. The guys missed a smartphone market, now they miss a tablet market while they are the ones that should make a decent and usable alternative.

</comment><comment><USER32> There is some truth in his point about big buttons. The idea of using a traditional keyboard+mouse interface with software designed for fingers is actually pretty appealing, just because of the ease of use constraints on the software.

<comment><USER33> Actually, it just continues to show the naïveté at the top.

The article has him saying "Media Center is Big Buttons", as if media center could solve their problems. I want to give them points for trying, but really the needs of an interface that's ten feet away and controlled with a remote are vastly different than one at your fingertips. Yes, they both need to be bigger in certain ways. But the similarity mostly stops there.

I hate to keep dragging out the Steve Jobs quote, but I really can't think of a better way to put it. "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."

<comment><USER34> Or the similar: "darling, style isn't something you put on after a bath"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wow, I'm shocked. I wonder how long he will be able to get away with this.

<comment><USER36> Get away with what?

<comment><USER35> Avoiding a simple question, not having an answer ready to questions easily forseen, speaking on the brink of uttering nonsense, making really bad jokes wrt a competitors product and its user.

I read a transcipt of Ballmers public speaking before and I was then also shocked by the poor quality of it.</comment></comment></comment>