What about weaponry upgrade etc (that affects game play) is only earned by skill - but you additionally have to pay for (some of) it?
This would simulate elite sporting equipment that only really helps if you are already very skilled... and the brands become potent symbols of ability.
The difference in games is that improved weaponry usually gives a great advantage, whether you are skilled or not. Linking possession to proven skill would legitimize it... and also make it more desirable.
...and are ordinary business advice, which open source also follows:
- fast to market - start with something that runs, and a vision of it becoming something really cool
- improve features - release early, release often
- segment the market so it can take advantage of a divide-and-conquer strategy...
That last one is interesting. It is written from a rapacious point of view, but it also means meeting the needs of different groups of people - which is a good for consumers.
Open source does not do this. Business software also does not do this. Partly because it undermines network effects.
Actually, what I meant was that Google benefits from faster javascript in that it makes the web more attractive to more users. More web users means more people clicking on Google advertisements. Whether this happens because of Google's own browser, or because it spurns on the competition, Google wins just the same.
It's similar situation in that spectrum auction, where Google didn't win (it dropped out, I think), but it managed open up the spectrum.
Google's interests mostly coincide with the public interest - so far.
It seems to me that what the big software vendors really provide is bureaucracy-compatibility. You need to charge a lot, for all that hassle to be worthwhile.
But, if you go to the trouble to reach that threshold, it contributes to your competitive advantage; maybe by quite a lot.
Making a software product you love seems problematic as a business: you either have to go free (not charging for the product), or go corporate (which is about dealing with the hassle).
The WPS was the Win 95 shell done right. It took MS, what, 6 years? to get Windows to the stability of OS/2. Alas, OS/2 is now a corpse.
Another lesson in "release early"?
I saw a car GPS navigation system today - it was so annoyingly slow. But it's available now, and you *can* navigate with it. They will sell more units than a better version that costs more. Over time, they will improve it - even if it takes 6 years.
Javascript can be enormously faster: compare ActionScript 2.0 and 3.0 (in Adobe's Flash).
This is a competitor in the AIR / silverlight / JavaFX space.
If Google can basically get these things right: local persistence, speed and animation tools (or improve them quickly), they will kick everyone's ass to hell and back. Unfortunately, Google hasn't shown (cultural) aptitude for animation.
The article means"when it makes sense for most laptops/desktops to use SSD. The special advantages of SSDs - less power, lightweight and robust (no moving parts) - are especially attractive for mobile applications (e.g. ipod, sublaptop).
For GB per $, SSD will always be more expensive than HDD, even as both get cheaper. But if we assume that the demand for GB does not increase as fast, then eventually both will be affordable. The comparison then shifts to other considerations, and SSD wins.
"The innovator's dilemma" is based on similar shifts in HHD technology (as the size decreased).
Yes, exactly. And with AMD's acquisition of ATI, only they have expertise in both GPUs and CPUs (unlike Intel and NVidia). The market opportunity is integrated graphics and above - validated markets. A good time to buy AMD stock, perhaps... (we'll see in a year or two)
BTW: what about on-CPU cache, to use up that excess room? We haven't reached the point of diminishing returns yet, have we?
AMD's forthcoming Fusion platform... will combine a GPU and a CPU on one die.
"Joining both components on the same die doesn't buy you that much," he commented. "It's not like there's a real bottleneck there. And every square millimeter you add to the die is a very expensive millimeter. It's an incremental expense, not a linear function. It's cheaper to separate them."
I think a CPU/GPU in one will be attractive to the low-end of the market (between integrated graphics and GPU). As silicon gets cheaper, this approach will creep upmarket til it dominates.
As Moore's law makes silicon cheaper, what are you going to do with it? more cache, more cores... why not a GPU? Concurrent software to utilize multi-cores is not yet mainstream (maybe never), so that leaves cache and GPU.
In a way, the existence of separate GPUs is just a sign that the CPU wasn't powerful enough to deliver the graphics the market wanted (and would pay for). When CPU's are powerful enough (clock speed or multi-core), they'll subsume the GPU, as they did maths co-processors and cache. ie. The silicon would be partitioned into CPU, GPU and cache - but it would all be on the one chip (called the "CPU" no doubt).
Intel already owns a fair bit of the integrated graphics market. They have great access to channels. Even if this is only half as good as a separate GPU, they will increase market share. I can't see what could stop them... except maybe a patented technology that can't be worked around. Some manufacturers of separate GPU's will survive in specialized niches. Some.
It's not the number of bits, but that memory protection is lacking at the CPU level. For example, linux won't run on a 186 - you need at least a 286 (which Linus started on).
You can make a unix-like clone, that is still useful (eg minix) but not a modern one.
While ridiculing a powerful person is naive, socially inept and/or courageous, it's also mean.
For me, trolling is defined by unkindness, not by truth. It's the intention to disrupt and hurt that makes it trolling. Even if done by speaking truth, it's still trolling.
I find that if I want to speak truth, it's straightforward to do it kindly. But not easy, if I'm triggered in some way. In that case, I need to first get over myself.
I wonder why Adobe thought differently in 1994? Since Warnock's a co-founder, I'd be surprised that his views were overruled, and also surprised if he'd changed his mind. BTW: That link reports only has a summary of Warnock's views (there's no specifics).
That list of patents shows utilization, not necessarily support.
I've read submissions from Adobe that they don't support patents.
They think the troll cost is not worth it. They do utilize patents, but that's just so they have something to cross-license. They claim patents aren't necessary for innovation, nor for protecting startups (eg. they started up fine without patents).
This was a few years ago, so they may possibly have since changed their minds.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah! Start at version 23.0
What about weaponry upgrade etc (that affects game play) is only earned by skill - but you additionally have to pay for (some of) it?
This would simulate elite sporting equipment that only really helps if you are already very skilled... and the brands become potent symbols of ability.
The difference in games is that improved weaponry usually gives a great advantage, whether you are skilled or not. Linking possession to proven skill would legitimize it... and also make it more desirable.
More variation: more geniuses and more... idiots.
Consider: if you hear about a Darwin Award winner, is there any doubt whatsoever in your mind that it is a guy?
Maybe Outlook will run under WINE?
...and are ordinary business advice, which open source also follows:
- fast to market - start with something that runs, and a vision of it becoming something really cool
- improve features - release early, release often
- segment the market so it can take advantage of a divide-and-conquer strategy...
That last one is interesting. It is written from a rapacious point of view, but it also means meeting the needs of different groups of people - which is a good for consumers.
Open source does not do this. Business software also does not do this. Partly because it undermines network effects.
Actually, what I meant was that Google benefits from faster javascript in that it makes the web more attractive to more users. More web users means more people clicking on Google advertisements. Whether this happens because of Google's own browser, or because it spurns on the competition, Google wins just the same.
It's similar situation in that spectrum auction, where Google didn't win (it dropped out, I think), but it managed open up the spectrum.
Google's interests mostly coincide with the public interest - so far.
Even when they lose, they win.
Infinite data structures have been available for a long time in Haskell - what practical applications has they been used for?
There's a long history of pure mathematics being considered useless... until a use is found. Has it happened yet?
It seems to me that what the big software vendors really provide is bureaucracy-compatibility. You need to charge a lot, for all that hassle to be worthwhile.
But, if you go to the trouble to reach that threshold, it contributes to your competitive advantage; maybe by quite a lot.
Making a software product you love seems problematic as a business: you either have to go free (not charging for the product), or go corporate (which is about dealing with the hassle).
The WPS was the Win 95 shell done right. It took MS, what, 6 years? to get Windows to the stability of OS/2. Alas, OS/2 is now a corpse.
Another lesson in "release early"?
I saw a car GPS navigation system today - it was so annoyingly slow. But it's available now, and you *can* navigate with it. They will sell more units than a better version that costs more. Over time, they will improve it - even if it takes 6 years.
Javascript can be enormously faster: compare ActionScript 2.0 and 3.0 (in Adobe's Flash).
This is a competitor in the AIR / silverlight / JavaFX space.
If Google can basically get these things right: local persistence, speed and animation tools (or improve them quickly), they will kick everyone's ass to hell and back. Unfortunately, Google hasn't shown (cultural) aptitude for animation.
... typing this on an eee PC.
The article means"when it makes sense for most laptops/desktops to use SSD. The special advantages of SSDs - less power, lightweight and robust (no moving parts) - are especially attractive for mobile applications (e.g. ipod, sublaptop).
For GB per $, SSD will always be more expensive than HDD, even as both get cheaper. But if we assume that the demand for GB does not increase as fast, then eventually both will be affordable. The comparison then shifts to other considerations, and SSD wins.
"The innovator's dilemma" is based on similar shifts in HHD technology (as the size decreased).
An integrated projector would address the display issue.
what to do with all of the excess room
Yes, exactly. And with AMD's acquisition of ATI, only they have expertise in both GPUs and CPUs (unlike Intel and NVidia). The market opportunity is integrated graphics and above - validated markets. A good time to buy AMD stock, perhaps... (we'll see in a year or two)
BTW: what about on-CPU cache, to use up that excess room? We haven't reached the point of diminishing returns yet, have we?
I posted this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=655483&cid=24726901 before I saw AMD's fusion (perfect name, btw)
AMD's forthcoming Fusion platform ... will combine a GPU and a CPU on one die.
"Joining both components on the same die doesn't buy you that much," he commented. "It's not like there's a real bottleneck there. And every square millimeter you add to the die is a very expensive millimeter. It's an incremental expense, not a linear function. It's cheaper to separate them."
I think a CPU/GPU in one will be attractive to the low-end of the market (between integrated graphics and GPU). As silicon gets cheaper, this approach will creep upmarket til it dominates.
As Moore's law makes silicon cheaper, what are you going to do with it? more cache, more cores... why not a GPU? Concurrent software to utilize multi-cores is not yet mainstream (maybe never), so that leaves cache and GPU.
In a way, the existence of separate GPUs is just a sign that the CPU wasn't powerful enough to deliver the graphics the market wanted (and would pay for). When CPU's are powerful enough (clock speed or multi-core), they'll subsume the GPU, as they did maths co-processors and cache. ie. The silicon would be partitioned into CPU, GPU and cache - but it would all be on the one chip (called the "CPU" no doubt).
Intel already owns a fair bit of the integrated graphics market. They have great access to channels. Even if this is only half as good as a separate GPU, they will increase market share. I can't see what could stop them... except maybe a patented technology that can't be worked around. Some manufacturers of separate GPU's will survive in specialized niches. Some.
I've never heard people openly talk about how much they hate a Microsoft product before.
Welcome to slashdot
wait... do "motorized office chairs" have their own icon on slashdot now?
It's not the number of bits, but that memory protection is lacking at the CPU level. For example, linux won't run on a 186 - you need at least a 286 (which Linus started on).
You can make a unix-like clone, that is still useful (eg minix) but not a modern one.
While ridiculing a powerful person is naive, socially inept and/or courageous, it's also mean.
For me, trolling is defined by unkindness, not by truth. It's the intention to disrupt and hurt that makes it trolling. Even if done by speaking truth, it's still trolling.
I find that if I want to speak truth, it's straightforward to do it kindly. But not easy, if I'm triggered in some way. In that case, I need to first get over myself.
Of course loneliness is not an emergency.
But if not addressed in some way, it can become another kind of emergency.
For reference, here's Adobe's 1994 position (stated by Douglas Brotz, Principal Scientist at the time):
http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/software_patent_adobe.htm
I wonder why Adobe thought differently in 1994? Since Warnock's a co-founder, I'd be surprised that his views were overruled, and also surprised if he'd changed his mind. BTW: That link reports only has a summary of Warnock's views (there's no specifics).
That list of patents shows utilization, not necessarily support.
I've read submissions from Adobe that they don't support patents.
They think the troll cost is not worth it. They do utilize patents, but that's just so they have something to cross-license. They claim patents aren't necessary for innovation, nor for protecting startups (eg. they started up fine without patents).
This was a few years ago, so they may possibly have since changed their minds.
how come i make the joke, but you get the upmods? *sigh*
oh well, as long as someone got the funniness at some point. :-)