Slashdot Mirror

The editors/writers at Slashdot aren't alone. Today's BadTech cartoon (I saw it at NewsForger) has the equally annoying misuse of "you're/your" as in "If you can change you're surface texture..." Yes, it's a minor thing. In fact, it's so minor that it's probably taught in 3rd grade. So how about getting right now that you're an adult.

It is called Freedom VR - two versions are available, one written in Java, and a new Alpha version written in Javascript. The Java version has more features, but the Javascript version is faster, and best of all, GPL'd (and I would bet the features would be dead easy to add):

Freedom VR

On a similar vein as what you have already tried, check out the Badtech Office Tour...

Worldcom - Generation Duh!

If you liked that post you will love this cartoon

Q: What is the sound of a exploding pc, if there is nobody to hear it?

Yep, all that content, and yet when there's a slow day at work I can still run out of interesting stuff to look at on the internet.

little gamers, penny arcade, goats (not goatse), and badtech: online comics. It'll take a while to browse the entire archive.

everything 2: nearly half a million writeups on topics from aardvarks to zzyzx.

from BadTech were there.

(first P?)

Maybe some offers of desktop machines powered by these puppies would help their acceptance on the mainstream market. Why are they so much geared for the 'alternative' markets (note the quotes) of (ultra-)portables ?

My point is that these processors (on paper) seem to have a potential as the part of a 100% quiet PC : since they don't produce as much heat as other x86 and compatibles, they could live without a fan, saving our mistreated ears and nerves.

I'd be very interested in building a Transmeta-powered machine for my personal use, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there's no desktop motherboard available. That's a shame. Besides the fact that they would be more expensive than an Intel or AMD processor of similar performance, are there good reasons why we don't see any desktop offer ? Any clue about a mobo manufacturer who has plans on supporting these ?

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

True to previous rumors, the mouse does not sport a traditional mouse button. Instead, sources said, the user simply applies pressure to to front of the unit, at which time resistance will give way allowing the mouse, as a whole, to tilt closer to the underlying surface, producing what is currently known as a mouse click.

Will Apple finally understand that a second button can be really useful for a whole range of tasks, and send a different signal to the computer whether the right and the left 'non-button' is pressed ?

And, even better... A 'non-wheel' support sure would be could too.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Some years ago, I read in a magazine that in the future, even microwave ovens would be connected to the Internet.

Indeed... this monstruosity looks just like my microwave oven.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

or SMB, not a standard but would require no extra software for windows users?

Is the average user computer savvy enough to understand how to share a directory from his PC HD ? From that point of view, a dedicated and simplified FTP server included on a CD found in the box would be easier.

I know Macs have some implementation of SMB (I don't know what it's called).

I think that "Dave" is an SMB server for the Macintosh.

Another question that comes to mind is : is it easy for Dell to implement an SMB client ? An FTP client would sure be easiest to implement, wouldn't it ?

Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

I was wondering about that while reading the article. The best way to make it simple, IMHO, would be to use the FTP protocol. At least one implementation of an FTP server is freely available on every OS I can think of. Moreover, it could be packaged with a simple, made on purpose FTP server for those Windows people who don't want the pain of installing a non dedicated FTP server on their W98 box.

Now, the problem is that it isn't the original aim of the FTP protocol at all. It would certainly not be the most efficient protocol to serve this purpose, but we are talking about 128-192 Kbits / sec, i.e. virtually nothing. And it would make things so simple !

Does anybody think about inherent limits of the FTP protocol which would make it really incompatible with such a system ? I sure can stream mp3's by FTP from my 10 Mbits-connected-P100 Linux box so it can be so hard to conceive (I mean, I could do it, but I use Samba for this).

Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

I was wondering about that while reading the article. The best way to make it simple, IMHO, would be to use the FTP protocol. At least one implementation of an FTP server is freely available on every OS I can think of. Moreover, it could be packaged with a simple, made on purpose FTP server for those Windows people who don't want the pain of installing a non dedicated FTP server on their W98 box.

Now, the problem is that it isn't the original aim of the FTP protocol at all. It would certainly not be the most efficient protocol to serve this purpose, but we are talking about 128-192 Kbits / sec, i.e. virtually nothing. And it would make things so simple !

Does anybody think about inherent limits of the FTP protocol which would make it really incompatible with such a system ? I sure can stream mp3's by FTP from my 10 Mbits-connected-P100 Linux box so it can be so hard to conceive (I mean, I could do it, but I use Samba for this).

Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

In fact, iMac is a generic name for several different translucent Macintoshes with a built-in screen. The first iMac generation had a fan, newer ones haven't any.

Apple has always had a policy of designing silent machines. IIRC, it's partly due to Steve Job's aversion for those noisy machines.

The new iMacs, with other improvements, introduced a new sound system, known as the Harman/Kardon Odyssey audio system, which gives them an unprecedented sound quality : Apple didn't want to ruin this effort with white noise.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

In fact, iMac is a generic name for several different translucent Macintoshes with a built-in screen. The first iMac generation had a fan, newer ones haven't any.

Apple has always had a policy of designing silent machines. IIRC, it's partly due to Steve Job's aversion for those noisy machines.

The new iMacs, with other improvements, introduced a new sound system, known as the Harman/Kardon Odyssey audio system, which gives them an unprecedented sound quality : Apple didn't want to ruin this effort with white noise.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

How about using these low-power CPU's in desktop computers ? Without going in the matter, it could be seen as an useless idea : why put a less powerfull computer ("only" 500 Mhz) in a desktop PC ?

Mobile computers have one feature in common with iMac's : they haven't any fan. The current trends in computer is the more fans in the box, the better computer (see this recent Slashdot Poll, too). It's usual to find one big fan for the power supply, one or two of them on the CPU and on the video card, and even on the HD, the CD/DVD player, and on the CDR.

It makes very noisy computers ! Now, I've noticed that the evening, just after turning off my computer and calming down in a quiet room, my ears continue to burden, just as they continue to buzz after a hard rock concert (just a slight exaggeration, here). This can't be good. Really, that noise annoys me.

That's why I'd like to see low-power CPU's in fanless desktop PC's, just like in iMacs. I, for one, just don't care about speed on my desktop PC : my old P-II 266 Mhz is enough for my daily needs.

(And I'm not even talking about how inelegant is the principle of fans itself.)

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

How about using these low-power CPU's in desktop computers ? Without going in the matter, it could be seen as an useless idea : why put a less powerfull computer ("only" 500 Mhz) in a desktop PC ?

Mobile computers have one feature in common with iMac's : they haven't any fan. The current trends in computer is the more fans in the box, the better computer (see this recent Slashdot Poll, too). It's usual to find one big fan for the power supply, one or two of them on the CPU and on the video card, and even on the HD, the CD/DVD player, and on the CDR.

It makes very noisy computers ! Now, I've noticed that the evening, just after turning off my computer and calming down in a quiet room, my ears continue to burden, just as they continue to buzz after a hard rock concert (just a slight exaggeration, here). This can't be good. Really, that noise annoys me.

That's why I'd like to see low-power CPU's in fanless desktop PC's, just like in iMacs. I, for one, just don't care about speed on my desktop PC : my old P-II 266 Mhz is enough for my daily needs.

(And I'm not even talking about how inelegant is the principle of fans itself.)

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Dear Mr. Moderator,

May I know why this guy's posting was moderated as Flamebait ? He posted his idea on the subject and it seems to me that it's a valid point.

I'd like to add that I don't like the idea of an identification system to listen downloaded music : it's a move in the wrong direction.

The present system of audio CDs, which you buy once and on which you have property rights (usus, fructus, abusus) is far better than those fuzzy rights. For me it's OK to buy music I like, but please, don't turn my music experience in a techno-nightmare.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Dear Mr. Moderator,

May I know why this guy's posting was moderated as Flamebait ? He posted his idea on the subject and it seems to me that it's a valid point.

I'd like to add that I don't like the idea of an identification system to listen downloaded music : it's a move in the wrong direction.

The present system of audio CDs, which you buy once and on which you have property rights (usus, fructus, abusus) is far better than those fuzzy rights. For me it's OK to buy music I like, but please, don't turn my music experience in a techno-nightmare.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.

AMD has gained some credibility in the last months, but I really doubt they are strong enough to dictate the plateform the average Joe will use in the future.

Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?

Slower and sucking performance... That's another big assumption ;)
Moreover, who still cares about real, measured performance ? The recent 1Ghz hoopla (even if it eventually turned in the favor of AMD) shows that what's really important is the marketing, the eye candy. Those chips were 'simple' Athlons/PIII's, but 1Ghz sounded sooooo sweet.

I first though about writing 2 lines about AMD in my original posting, but the topic has been discussed so many times before : we finally have the possibility to get rid of this x86 mess. It took Intel 15 years to give us a non-x86 processor. I really hope the market won't perpetuate x86's hegemony by buying Sledgehammers.
When Intel decided to help porting Linux to the IA64, they made it clear that open source OSes can help the transition : when most of the applications just need a recompilation to work on a new platform, the pain of migration disappears magically !

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.

AMD has gained some credibility in the last months, but I really doubt they are strong enough to dictate the plateform the average Joe will use in the future.

Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?

Slower and sucking performance... That's another big assumption ;)
Moreover, who still cares about real, measured performance ? The recent 1Ghz hoopla (even if it eventually turned in the favor of AMD) shows that what's really important is the marketing, the eye candy. Those chips were 'simple' Athlons/PIII's, but 1Ghz sounded sooooo sweet.

I first though about writing 2 lines about AMD in my original posting, but the topic has been discussed so many times before : we finally have the possibility to get rid of this x86 mess. It took Intel 15 years to give us a non-x86 processor. I really hope the market won't perpetuate x86's hegemony by buying Sledgehammers.
When Intel decided to help porting Linux to the IA64, they made it clear that open source OSes can help the transition : when most of the applications just need a recompilation to work on a new platform, the pain of migration disappears magically !

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

If M$ gets split, Apple will port its OS to x86.

Very unlikely... Why would they kill their own business (almost only hardware) for such a risky move ? Who would buy Macintosh hardware if cheap PC clones running MacOS would do the job ? OK, the Mac architecture is better than PC's one, but the percentage of people who really care about that is marginal.

Moreover, you're talking about x86. Think about it : if MS is ever split (which I really doubt), it will not be before 2001 or even 2002. By that time (I hope I'm not thinking wishfully), x86 will be out and replaced by the Intel 64 bits Itanium architecture. Would Apple issue a MacOS X version just for old computers ? MacOS' market was always high end desktop machines, why would they suddenly care about oldest PC's ?

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

If M$ gets split, Apple will port its OS to x86.

Very unlikely... Why would they kill their own business (almost only hardware) for such a risky move ? Who would buy Macintosh hardware if cheap PC clones running MacOS would do the job ? OK, the Mac architecture is better than PC's one, but the percentage of people who really care about that is marginal.

Moreover, you're talking about x86. Think about it : if MS is ever split (which I really doubt), it will not be before 2001 or even 2002. By that time (I hope I'm not thinking wishfully), x86 will be out and replaced by the Intel 64 bits Itanium architecture. Would Apple issue a MacOS X version just for old computers ? MacOS' market was always high end desktop machines, why would they suddenly care about oldest PC's ?

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

OK... Maybe it's my understanding of the word viable which is biased, but for me, it means has a good potential .

The article is about the time when Microsoft will be split in two parts. Which won't happen before a certain amount of time. If it happens at all (they will appeal).

BeOS, BeOS applications, Linux, Linux applications, in one or two years, will hopefully have matured and won't be viable anymore, but usable .

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

OK... Maybe it's my understanding of the word viable which is biased, but for me, it means has a good potential .

The article is about the time when Microsoft will be split in two parts. Which won't happen before a certain amount of time. If it happens at all (they will appeal).

BeOS, BeOS applications, Linux, Linux applications, in one or two years, will hopefully have matured and won't be viable anymore, but usable .

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

As much as I love what I have seen so far about MacOS X, I can't see a serious vision of the future in this article, founded on too many prejudices and far enough from the reality, as well technically and in market terms. Here are three of the most evident prejudices :

Apple is currently the only company other than Windows, Inc. with a viable consumer operating system.

Err... Be ? RedHat, SuSE & other Linux distributors ?

Mac OS X is not just available for purchase, it's available for purchase running on PC hardware.

Since Apple makes money by selling hardware and has always done that, this scenario is less than probable. See what happened to Mac clones two years ago.

The vast majority of computer users--even professionals--want nothing to do with a command line.

Are you sure ? For some tasks, it's just the opposite : I don't want a GUI on my firewall, for instance.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

As much as I love what I have seen so far about MacOS X, I can't see a serious vision of the future in this article, founded on too many prejudices and far enough from the reality, as well technically and in market terms. Here are three of the most evident prejudices :

Apple is currently the only company other than Windows, Inc. with a viable consumer operating system.

Err... Be ? RedHat, SuSE & other Linux distributors ?

Mac OS X is not just available for purchase, it's available for purchase running on PC hardware.

Since Apple makes money by selling hardware and has always done that, this scenario is less than probable. See what happened to Mac clones two years ago.

The vast majority of computer users--even professionals--want nothing to do with a command line.

Are you sure ? For some tasks, it's just the opposite : I don't want a GUI on my firewall, for instance.

Stéphane

Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?

Ouch, that was painful. Don't link to that anymore, okay? My head hurts now.

-jpowers

If this kind of thing interests you, id did these two cartoons surounding the original love-bug virus. 6th May, 8th May.

If this kind of thing interests you, id did these two cartoons surounding the original love-bug virus. 6th May, 8th May.

Haha - Will have to make badtech part of my daily routine :))

I uploaded a couple of frames from tomorrows badtech cartoon to play around with, in reality of course it's not going to be all that useful but I can really see how this could be useful to amateur web designers who just want to make some thing more flashy. Needs a few more functionality though, and I need some broadband access before I can use it for any of my day to day tasks.