I think you mistake me confusing mainframes for PC's with good ol' Mr. Alsop confusing mainframes for PCs for the following reasons:
I fully agree with the differences - I was simply pointing out that the mainframe of 1991 would physically fit into the space of today's desktop.
I never qualified speed as being clock speed and was actually referring to IO speed.
And lastly - Apple has a great marketing team, but I still know a G4 is not a supercomputer.
Stuart Alsop predicted what he did because he saw that desktop computers would overtake the computing power needed for mainframe and serving applications. He didn't take into account the differences in hardware and (as I pointed out) the increase in complexity of the programs the server would run. (and by no means are those personal apps)
With a "Bill Gates" 640k view of the world, of course we wouldn't need mainframe computers. Desktops now have more than enough power to run even the largest server applications of 1991 hands down and it's easy to see where that statement came from.
The problem with the vision is that Stewart Alsop didn't take into account the growing complexity of computer programs. We have plenty of (in comparison to the software of 1991) inefficient applications that require ridiculous amounts of computer power to serve and process everything we need done. We have complex server applications like gigantic databases and games and video servers that couldn't exist in the 1991 world.
The mainframe of yesteryear may now fit into the physical space of today's desktop... or smaller, but that doesn't mean there won't be a need for a bigger and faster one to take its place. That's as true now as it was then.
To uninstall a program, select it from the list and click "Uninstall" I would like to make two points:
1) Sony's own load images are to blame for much of the pre-installed adware and unnecessary bloat, why should there even be a fee in the first place to NOT install software?
2) Often uninstall in Windows isn't as easy as clicking "uninstall" as you suggest. Because of the nifty Windows inventions such as the registry and protected system folders, uninstall is no longer what it used to be. Many times, programs leave traces in the registry which never come out and can still slow the computer, and even cause crashes down the road. If you never load undesired programs in the first place, you avoid this added risk altogether.
I know not all programs take a merciless rampage through the registry and some uninstallers may be programmed without error, but lets face it, if any one programmer on a project left one registry entry undocumented, one system folder modification unchecked, one startup program off the uninstaller, you have a risk... now multiply that by the number of programmers on the projects...
now by the amount of bloat you have on your system before it's removed...
It may not be worth $50 to you or me even after all of that because we can easily reinstall, but to the average consumer it can be a lot more cumbersome.
What you have is a good idea in principle, but with potentially horrible consequences.
I would suggest some measures we can use:
1) static IP's. Then we can easily track down infected machines and take them offline. Advertising companies are jumping for joy at this one. The more stable the IP address, the more they can bombard you with ads specially tailored for you. I like the fact that DHCP refreshes my IP every day or so, it means that sites that use web-bugs and other semi-devious methods of gathering information and (much worse) sell it to other companies, only have a very limited time frame to do so - and the fact that my IP does refresh makes them that much less able to make any profit off of me.
2) Laws that require people to assume some form of responsibility when they connect a computer to the net. And what's going to happen if they don't "take responsibility?" By what metric do we judge responsibility? It sounds like the only way to enforce this is to dig into private internet usage information. I think the last thing I want is another person snooping around in the internet garbage bin for places my computer has been and is going to.
3) Perhaps some form of compulsory insurance policy. Mainly see the above, but in addition the last thing we need is another mandatory insurance policy.
4) Laws that require ISP's to disconnect spam bots and take some responsibility. This one may not be a terrible idea in practice, but ISP's are currently going nuts over things like bittorrent. What's to stop them from classifying bittorrent activity as "suspected botnet activity?"
I do like the spirit of the post, but I don't think there's a clear-cut solution to the problem.
Other than the fact the commercials might be dynamic based on the user watching, the whole idea of "advertisement slots" within a video is exactly the same as the good old TV shows/commercials we already know and love. This doesn't seem worthy of a patent. Is that perhaps why it's a patent application and has not issued as a patent?!
You are correct that prior art goes back a long way, however, this is a patent application, not a patent.
I highly doubt that Google will gain patent protection with the application as is and I agree that if this were to issue as a patent in current form it would be a mistake. I do think this is a good demonstration of the abuses attorneys put the patent system through though as most applications are exactly this general to begin with.
1 server
1 cup Apache
3 Tbs Linux (note that linux comes in many flavors and chef should select to taste)
a dash of GUI selection
let server simmer and slowly add Linux to taste
dress and add Apache. let bind.
extract and add GUI selection.
Garnish and serve!
Note: Linux can be fatty depending on cut. If desired, user can trim as necessary.
The current focus of the project is in developing algorithms that run on top of the portal application So is the goal of this automotive research to drive their car into the blue hole and come out the orange one? That would reduce a lot of traffic!
The question I have not seen posed yet. Who will benefit? Who will benefit of this outage? It's apparent from the article that statisticians and colored-chart advocates have benefited from this outage... if that helps.
You are correct that right now there is little competition for high-end bandwidths because it is prohibitively expensive. What I was saying is the US probably should be lagging behind other nations in growth and demand because the price-per-connection (due to the increased distance in many places) makes fiber lines very expensive to run and maintain. The point is that the article sounded like it was saying "we're not number one and we should be" which I think is inappropriate because of the above factors.
It's also true that fiber is slowly becoming available in more and more places. I do agree that it's too bad we have few competitors in the market and that will slow development to some degree, but there still is and will be effort to increase bandwidth in order to stay on top.
I'm confused here. Won't the market demand better service when it is needed? Sure $100 billion sounds like a lot, but when it's taken in smaller increments by the free market it's honestly nothing.
Yes the US is probably lagging behind some other countries, we are much more spread out and thus it requires more $$ for the same service, but I don't see a reason for the government to step in and "fix" something that isn't broken and is improving by itself already.
It seems the only reason this is proposed is so we can be "number 1" again. Kind of ridiculous honestly.
The new wrinkle is that, though the free tracks come encumbered with Windows Media DRM Yeah, that won't get cracked tomorrow.
The DRM business model is interesting. Ideally it would work allowing for people to receive reduced-priced music at the cost of ads or usability (i.e. music only able to be used on one device like what's been floating around lately) but the reality is they're providing another type of DRM which will allow another method of cracking and receiving (in this case) free music.
I realize that what they're trying for is a compromise, but as long as there are insanely poor college students with way too much time on their hands out there, the market they're targeting will never go for something like this in the way they intend.
Ask 'Who cares?' Um, Anybody concerned with internet privacy along with everybody who had a myspace account with pictures posted privately they did not intend the public to see.
Then ask 'why?' Because this has huge implications for online security.
Then ask 'so?' So, something like this that is potentially damaging should have had much better security measures against it.
Then keep asking 'so?' until you realize it's not that big of a deal. I'm asking... it's still a big deal
Problem solved. I think not.
Geez. The LAST thing society needs is a bunch of synthesized clones running around with hacked up spaghetti code for genes. Yes, Comment your genes for god sake!!!
The only way to check and see if your IP is being kept is by changing the protocol entirely or by checking the company's servers. I'm guessing that not too many companies would appreciate people routinely rooting around, and if something to check if an IP is stored were to be implemented, the protocol would have to be vastly overhauled and it could slow down the internet 80% or more because of the extra time needed to "check."
The bottom line is this is much like the ruling in the US that companies had to keep a record of working memory (which is entirely impossible,) This seems to be more legislators talking about something they know very little about.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the fact that it would make it harder for the ad industry to hunt you down which is always appreciated, I just don't think any reasonable implementation will work.
I wouldn't say it is Earth shaking news. On the contrary, volcanoes are among the leading cause of earthquakes so I would contend this is precisely "earth shaking news"
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mistake me confusing mainframes for PC's with good ol' Mr. Alsop confusing mainframes for PCs for the following reasons:
I fully agree with the differences - I was simply pointing out that the mainframe of 1991 would physically fit into the space of today's desktop.
I never qualified speed as being clock speed and was actually referring to IO speed.
And lastly - Apple has a great marketing team, but I still know a G4 is not a supercomputer.
Stuart Alsop predicted what he did because he saw that desktop computers would overtake the computing power needed for mainframe and serving applications. He didn't take into account the differences in hardware and (as I pointed out) the increase in complexity of the programs the server would run. (and by no means are those personal apps)
Cheers
49 20 70 6F 73 74 20 69 6E 20 68 65 78 2E
With a "Bill Gates" 640k view of the world, of course we wouldn't need mainframe computers. Desktops now have more than enough power to run even the largest server applications of 1991 hands down and it's easy to see where that statement came from.
The problem with the vision is that Stewart Alsop didn't take into account the growing complexity of computer programs. We have plenty of (in comparison to the software of 1991) inefficient applications that require ridiculous amounts of computer power to serve and process everything we need done. We have complex server applications like gigantic databases and games and video servers that couldn't exist in the 1991 world.
The mainframe of yesteryear may now fit into the physical space of today's desktop... or smaller, but that doesn't mean there won't be a need for a bigger and faster one to take its place. That's as true now as it was then.
1) Sony's own load images are to blame for much of the pre-installed adware and unnecessary bloat, why should there even be a fee in the first place to NOT install software?
2) Often uninstall in Windows isn't as easy as clicking "uninstall" as you suggest. Because of the nifty Windows inventions such as the registry and protected system folders, uninstall is no longer what it used to be. Many times, programs leave traces in the registry which never come out and can still slow the computer, and even cause crashes down the road. If you never load undesired programs in the first place, you avoid this added risk altogether.
I know not all programs take a merciless rampage through the registry and some uninstallers may be programmed without error, but lets face it, if any one programmer on a project left one registry entry undocumented, one system folder modification unchecked, one startup program off the uninstaller, you have a risk...
now multiply that by the number of programmers on the projects...
now by the amount of bloat you have on your system before it's removed...
It may not be worth $50 to you or me even after all of that because we can easily reinstall, but to the average consumer it can be a lot more cumbersome.
So that now to stop the tracking
with ISPs not lending backing
stoping only shy of hacking - hacking at my gateway door
Quoth Sir Berners: "Nevermore"
1) static IP's. Then we can easily track down infected machines and take them offline. Advertising companies are jumping for joy at this one. The more stable the IP address, the more they can bombard you with ads specially tailored for you. I like the fact that DHCP refreshes my IP every day or so, it means that sites that use web-bugs and other semi-devious methods of gathering information and (much worse) sell it to other companies, only have a very limited time frame to do so - and the fact that my IP does refresh makes them that much less able to make any profit off of me. 2) Laws that require people to assume some form of responsibility when they connect a computer to the net. And what's going to happen if they don't "take responsibility?" By what metric do we judge responsibility? It sounds like the only way to enforce this is to dig into private internet usage information. I think the last thing I want is another person snooping around in the internet garbage bin for places my computer has been and is going to. 3) Perhaps some form of compulsory insurance policy. Mainly see the above, but in addition the last thing we need is another mandatory insurance policy. 4) Laws that require ISP's to disconnect spam bots and take some responsibility. This one may not be a terrible idea in practice, but ISP's are currently going nuts over things like bittorrent. What's to stop them from classifying bittorrent activity as "suspected botnet activity?"
I do like the spirit of the post, but I don't think there's a clear-cut solution to the problem.
You are correct that prior art goes back a long way, however, this is a patent application, not a patent.
I highly doubt that Google will gain patent protection with the application as is and I agree that if this were to issue as a patent in current form it would be a mistake. I do think this is a good demonstration of the abuses attorneys put the patent system through though as most applications are exactly this general to begin with.
1 server
1 cup Apache
3 Tbs Linux (note that linux comes in many flavors and chef should select to taste)
a dash of GUI selection
Let server simmer and slowly add Linux to taste
Dress and add Apache - let bind.
Extract and add GUI selection.
Garnish and serve!
Note: Linux can be fatty depending on cut. If desired, user can trim as necessary.
1 server 1 cup Apache 3 Tbs Linux (note that linux comes in many flavors and chef should select to taste) a dash of GUI selection let server simmer and slowly add Linux to taste dress and add Apache. let bind. extract and add GUI selection. Garnish and serve! Note: Linux can be fatty depending on cut. If desired, user can trim as necessary.
Wouldn't that be sort?
I thought it was the working title for Weird Science!
I'm at lea...
st getting s...
ome action f...
rom the vi...
deo!
You are correct that right now there is little competition for high-end bandwidths because it is prohibitively expensive. What I was saying is the US probably should be lagging behind other nations in growth and demand because the price-per-connection (due to the increased distance in many places) makes fiber lines very expensive to run and maintain. The point is that the article sounded like it was saying "we're not number one and we should be" which I think is inappropriate because of the above factors.
It's also true that fiber is slowly becoming available in more and more places. I do agree that it's too bad we have few competitors in the market and that will slow development to some degree, but there still is and will be effort to increase bandwidth in order to stay on top.
I'm confused here. Won't the market demand better service when it is needed? Sure $100 billion sounds like a lot, but when it's taken in smaller increments by the free market it's honestly nothing.
Yes the US is probably lagging behind some other countries, we are much more spread out and thus it requires more $$ for the same service, but I don't see a reason for the government to step in and "fix" something that isn't broken and is improving by itself already.
It seems the only reason this is proposed is so we can be "number 1" again. Kind of ridiculous honestly.
The DRM business model is interesting. Ideally it would work allowing for people to receive reduced-priced music at the cost of ads or usability (i.e. music only able to be used on one device like what's been floating around lately) but the reality is they're providing another type of DRM which will allow another method of cracking and receiving (in this case) free music.
I realize that what they're trying for is a compromise, but as long as there are insanely poor college students with way too much time on their hands out there, the market they're targeting will never go for something like this in the way they intend.
We'll be able to genetically replicate those soon too
The only way to check and see if your IP is being kept is by changing the protocol entirely or by checking the company's servers. I'm guessing that not too many companies would appreciate people routinely rooting around, and if something to check if an IP is stored were to be implemented, the protocol would have to be vastly overhauled and it could slow down the internet 80% or more because of the extra time needed to "check."
The bottom line is this is much like the ruling in the US that companies had to keep a record of working memory (which is entirely impossible,) This seems to be more legislators talking about something they know very little about.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the fact that it would make it harder for the ad industry to hunt you down which is always appreciated, I just don't think any reasonable implementation will work.