...that SSDs were designed to be more durable than HDDs due to lack of moving parts. If they use the same amount of electricity as a HDD for the same operations then so be it. Perhaps someone will design a SSD which only powers memory regions which are being accessed at the time as opposed to the all-on/off nature of current drives.
I'm a big fan of technology assisting our daily lives. However where do you draw the line? Technology is a multi-faceted tool of efficiency. When used correctly it can overcome disabilities. At the other end of the spectrum, technology can be used to kill. At neither of these spectrums is another option: control. Governments and corporations would love nothing more than to know what every person is doing at any time of the day. Once that happens, say goodbye to freedom of speech and privacy (if they haven't been taken already).
That's fine that it costs more, but sony is also LOSING more on each PS3 sold.
If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast... They are. Seen the Australian and NZ pricing lately? AU$1000 or NZ$1200 (take your pick) for the consoles alone. No games. No HD connectors. No free HDTV. Compare that price to the US price (for a PS3 without software emulation I might add) and theres quite a bit of 'profit' made on each console sold. Also the EU/AU PS3 version also costs ~US$30 cheaper to produce than the US/JP version.
IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda. The PS3 has suffered because the most reknown [originally Nintendo but now] PS series, Final Fantasy, hasn't released their next incarnation yet. From the feedback I've read over numerous forums and comments from blogs, had Sony released the PS3 at the same time as FF they would've been onto something good. Now with that hanging in the balance they're treading on thin ice despite the 'home theatre' features.
I live in Australia so instantly you should realise that I am really annoyed at Sony. They claim that we'll be satisfied with the $1000 price tag because of the "fantastic graphics". WAKE UP SONY! The graphics aren't the end-all and be-all of games (they should've realised this, looking at the Wii). They probably think we're all a bunch of red neck techno-phobes with lots of money and the IQ of a gnats left testicle. Combined. The graphics are the same as the US/Jap versions so HOW does that justify costing so much more? It doesn't cost AU$250 per unit to ship them out here. Sony's trying to recoup it's losses on the rest of the world plain and simple. They really don't give a toss about 'the rest of the world' it seems. Several friends of mine are dedicated Sony fans (they wont go near the Wii or XBox360) and have well worn PS2s. Because of this debacle they're not touching the PS3 until Sony get their act together and frankly I don't blame them.
There seems to be a trade-off between people with IT skills and those that rely on them. The IT professional *can* often think the users they manage are not the smartest bunch, but they're not asked to be. That's not to say non-IT people are dumb. Quite the opposite. An IT professional has dedicated their time to figuring out how some aspect(s) of a computer works. A non-IT professional has used that same time to do other things such as develop their people and business skills and the like.
On the other hand, *some* non-IT savvy computer users believe that IT geeks, although having the ability to 'magically' fix problems with their computer/software, don't have people skills. This is a death sentence for an IT professional trying to be sociable and a point of view which needs addressing. I've heard a running joke that states it's better to tell someone you're unemployed rather than to say you're a programmer.
I'm a developer in a position where my boss has pushed me to talk to our customers directly by being email and phone support. Over time this has made it obvious to me that it is VERY important to put yourself in the client's position regardless of how frustratingly simple to fix an issue could be. What someone with minimal to no computer experience is seeing on their screen can often be like being seated in a commercial jumbo jet pilot seat and being asked to fly it. Any button or switch could send the plane hurtling to it's doom.
One (of many) possible cause(s) of these stereotypes is the development of the GUI and GUI design. A GUI for an IT pro and a non-IT pro are two very different things. *Most* IT pros will look at a window full of buttons, toggles, etc. and simply say that it has all the controls it needs. A non-IT savvy user will look at the same screen and instantly be daunted by the complexity of the controls. Ultimately this means that when designing a GUI, a particular user base was not catered for. The light switch example is a good one. Just by looking at it one can discern how it is to be used. A problem with GUI design is how do you design a GUI which compels a non-IT savvy user to press a button the keyboard or drag and click the mouse. Those who do not think this is an issue I invite them to develop a touch screen interface for non-IT savvy users. The moment you decide to cater only for a limited user base you lose.
Slashdot Mirror
...that SSDs were designed to be more durable than HDDs due to lack of moving parts. If they use the same amount of electricity as a HDD for the same operations then so be it.
Perhaps someone will design a SSD which only powers memory regions which are being accessed at the time as opposed to the all-on/off nature of current drives.
I'm a big fan of technology assisting our daily lives. However where do you draw the line? Technology is a multi-faceted tool of efficiency. When used correctly it can overcome disabilities. At the other end of the spectrum, technology can be used to kill. At neither of these spectrums is another option: control. Governments and corporations would love nothing more than to know what every person is doing at any time of the day. Once that happens, say goodbye to freedom of speech and privacy (if they haven't been taken already).
If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast... They are. Seen the Australian and NZ pricing lately? AU$1000 or NZ$1200 (take your pick) for the consoles alone. No games. No HD connectors. No free HDTV. Compare that price to the US price (for a PS3 without software emulation I might add) and theres quite a bit of 'profit' made on each console sold. Also the EU/AU PS3 version also costs ~US$30 cheaper to produce than the US/JP version.
IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda. The PS3 has suffered because the most reknown [originally Nintendo but now] PS series, Final Fantasy, hasn't released their next incarnation yet. From the feedback I've read over numerous forums and comments from blogs, had Sony released the PS3 at the same time as FF they would've been onto something good. Now with that hanging in the balance they're treading on thin ice despite the 'home theatre' features.
I live in Australia so instantly you should realise that I am really annoyed at Sony. They claim that we'll be satisfied with the $1000 price tag because of the "fantastic graphics". WAKE UP SONY! The graphics aren't the end-all and be-all of games (they should've realised this, looking at the Wii). They probably think we're all a bunch of red neck techno-phobes with lots of money and the IQ of a gnats left testicle. Combined. The graphics are the same as the US/Jap versions so HOW does that justify costing so much more? It doesn't cost AU$250 per unit to ship them out here. Sony's trying to recoup it's losses on the rest of the world plain and simple. They really don't give a toss about 'the rest of the world' it seems. Several friends of mine are dedicated Sony fans (they wont go near the Wii or XBox360) and have well worn PS2s. Because of this debacle they're not touching the PS3 until Sony get their act together and frankly I don't blame them.
Energy Australia (http://www.energyaustralia.com.au) already has a solar generation buyback scheme up and running:
t tachmentsByTitle/Rooftop+Solar+Generators/$FILE/Ro oftop_Solar_Generators.pdf
http://www.energyaustralia.com.au/energy/ea.nsf/A
The problem with the scheme is the cost of setting it up. It would take quite a long time to see the benefits.
There seems to be a trade-off between people with IT skills and those that rely on them. The IT professional *can* often think the users they manage are not the smartest bunch, but they're not asked to be. That's not to say non-IT people are dumb. Quite the opposite. An IT professional has dedicated their time to figuring out how some aspect(s) of a computer works. A non-IT professional has used that same time to do other things such as develop their people and business skills and the like.
On the other hand, *some* non-IT savvy computer users believe that IT geeks, although having the ability to 'magically' fix problems with their computer/software, don't have people skills. This is a death sentence for an IT professional trying to be sociable and a point of view which needs addressing. I've heard a running joke that states it's better to tell someone you're unemployed rather than to say you're a programmer.
I'm a developer in a position where my boss has pushed me to talk to our customers directly by being email and phone support. Over time this has made it obvious to me that it is VERY important to put yourself in the client's position regardless of how frustratingly simple to fix an issue could be. What someone with minimal to no computer experience is seeing on their screen can often be like being seated in a commercial jumbo jet pilot seat and being asked to fly it. Any button or switch could send the plane hurtling to it's doom.
One (of many) possible cause(s) of these stereotypes is the development of the GUI and GUI design. A GUI for an IT pro and a non-IT pro are two very different things. *Most* IT pros will look at a window full of buttons, toggles, etc. and simply say that it has all the controls it needs. A non-IT savvy user will look at the same screen and instantly be daunted by the complexity of the controls. Ultimately this means that when designing a GUI, a particular user base was not catered for. The light switch example is a good one. Just by looking at it one can discern how it is to be used. A problem with GUI design is how do you design a GUI which compels a non-IT savvy user to press a button the keyboard or drag and click the mouse. Those who do not think this is an issue I invite them to develop a touch screen interface for non-IT savvy users. The moment you decide to cater only for a limited user base you lose.