The plot thickens as they attempt to take over the world!
And have to become the next Microsoft? We've already been through the DOJ grinder once, and both employees who remember it don't want to go back.
As I have explained before, IBM believes in being a player in every market and a monopolizer of none. Our strategy is to get dominance in any market we play in, if possible. If we don't have dominance, develop and/or produce cutting edge components like GPS chips, hard drives, Transmeta chips, etc. and make a few cents off of every dollar our competitor makes. If you use someone else's software or hardware, our services consultants will still fly out and tell you how to make the best of it and fix it when it breaks (like Win 2K). In short, IBM stays the biggest single IT company in the world without holding a monopoly club over any given market. It enables those of us who work for Big Blue to feel like the good guys, especially when IBM is amongst the leaders in the push for standards that are non-MS-centric for such efforts as Java, etc.
Disclaimer: I don't "represent" IBM. I just work there.
For a console (and that *is* what we are talking about, right?) 600 Mhz would be a breakthrough, right?
That's the problem. MS is really leading technical people to believe that the X-Box is more PC than console. They are selling it to developers as the "easy to program for" system. "It uses DirectX and we know you love that!" The CPU seems more likely to be a slightly altered 600 MHz Celeron chip than anything else. Depending on which question you ask and who is asking, MS developers will tell you that X-Box is not a PC and is totally a console, or they will tell you that it is exactly like a PC.
The PS2 is a console through and through. I'm a little surprised, because previous reports I had seen about the PS2 marked the Emotion Engine internals at 350 MHz, not 250 MHz. When it gets to the US, I'll look into that more. Either way, MHz is really a very poor metric for console performance. The problem with PC CPUs, it that they are Jacks-of-all trades. They do everything about equally well: Mediocre. As a result, high MHz speeds allows them to chug through stuff faster and mimic the effects of more dedicated machines. A dedicated and optimized piece of hardware can often run at one third the speed of a normal CPU in MHz and still outperform it. This is because the dedicated hardware might take 6 cycles to complete a specialized task that takes the PC CPU 20 cycles. The trade-off, is that a task outside the specialized field is likely to take the dedicated hardware 60 cycles while taking the PC CPU the same 20 cycles. (Note: This is an example I am making up as an illustration, I don't have the specs for any dedicated hardware memorized offhand.) When the PS2 tries to do email and such, it will lose the massive edge it has, because it is optimised completely for 3D games. On the other hand, email can be done just as well by a 25 MHz 386 as a 1 GHz P3.
This is not the end of privacy and freedom on the net. Such a thing has not occurred and will not occur within the forseeable future. Admittedly, the forseeable future is limited to months or years right now.
What we are seeing is restriction of absolute freedom in certain areas in exchange for higher profitability for certain entities. These businesses, governments, and special interest groups have their own requirements for their ideal web. Needless to say different peoples' ideals are quite different. As different groups attempt to determine what strength they have in this medium and new area of both our cultures and our laws, they will push the boundaries. The same behaviors have occurred every time a new frontier crops up.
Is the time of the Mecca of absulute privacy and freedom over? It never really existed, honestly. We have always used real information about people on the net. If you want to be listened to seriously, you often have to let people know who you really are. You can lie convincingly, and that was just as good. The same principle applies now. Certain information is required and certain freedoms are limited to use many new aspects of the internet. This has been happening from Day One, but now corporations are doing it through lawsuits instead of individuals killfiling you on usenet. All we are seeing is the reactions changing according to the perceived severity of the situation from the "aggrieved" party's side. If you can lie convincingly in the new ways, it is still just as good as real information and privacy.
Like all frontiers, the web will continue to "civilize" as more people seek to get rich, put in the hard work, make it their home, and proceed from the founder generation to the ones that take this frontier for granted. Things will change, but barring an international action of draconian nature, freedom and privacy will remain. Our perceptions of them are what will change.
Thanks. It is good to know that this is something useful. Once again, however there is a lack of excessively easily accessible data beyond the fact that this is happening, and since when does more than 1% of/.ers bother to do some sort of research to discuss something?
Seriously, though, I hope that the approval of viral vectors in vaccinations comes up at some point. We look rather silly knowing about potiential vaccinations for diseases like AIDS using malarial and rabies vectors combined with partial HIV proteins, yet being unable to ever devlop the vaccines. Heck, we can't even test them on willing subjects if I am properly informed.
Maybe I am behind the times a bit, but isn't nanotechnology still in its infancy? I thought that we didn't have working nanotechnology of any sort yet. Do we need to start classifying bionanotechnology vs. regular nanotechnology yet?
If I understand what they are doing correctly, they are attacking the subset of nanotech that is designed for (hopefully) medical purposes. (OK, so the chances of a big chunk of nanites going into the "We promise not to use it!" vault of weapons is pretty high.) Why don't they just use seperate words?
I feel bad for the people who will have to say: "I work on nuclearfissonheattransferalnanotechnology." Head it off before it begins!
Seriously, is there anything to discuss about this workshop other than the fact that it being held and the name smacks of silliness?
For those with the knee-jerk reaction: "Wow! This is cool! That scientist is just wrong like they were with (insert famous scientist / thinker here)!" Please take this with a grain of salt. The probability that they will develop functional anti-gravity in the next twenty years, that will be commonly available, is virtually nil. This is long-shot research that may yield the desired result, but probably not soon.
For those with the knee-jerk reaction: "This is garbage. Anybody knows that 99% of crackpot theories are crackpot theories whether suits like them or not." Please look at the other outcomes than a total revolutionary change to how we see physics (although I suppose there is a decent chance that we are due).
The thing to actually look for in this sort of research is what might actually come out of it. Ideally from the funders' point of view, they will get a working antigravity system. Other, more probable outcomes are greatly enhanced knowledge about existing gravity repulsion techniques. Research like this often leads to side applications that affect people's everyday lives in vastly different ways than was ever thought of in the research. I can't remember what plastic was originally intended to be used for, but I don't think they intended to use it for darn near everything like it is used today. Similarly, how many experiments for space technology are better known for their applications on Earth? Let's wait and see what actually comes out of this research before we declare it useless or make plans for designing our new hovercars.
Note: Since it is military research, there is always a probability of a long delay before it hits the private sector, whatever the results are.
We are looking at fall 2001 at the earliest. This thing is going to be competing with computer gamers who have already forked over the cash for at least a 1.2 GHz processor or something equally massive. Computer game players are probably also the initial release target audience.
Console gamers are going to react the same way they initially did to the Playstation. They will regard it like an old smelly fish until the games start coming that make the thing worth more than their current system. Console gamers expect maybe two crashes in the course of a badly ported game where the previous version was operating on a processor with different sized instruction words. Random crashes throughout a game are not acceptable on console systems. Reviewers tend to send the game back if it crashes even once.
While I am continuing to be tempted to dismiss this product out of hand, I am trying to reserve my judgement to see what they actually do. MS can do great work if they actually take the time to debug their code, test its usability, and don't try to make it interoperable with everything under the sun. Unfortunately, their business model usually nixes all three of those. If MS can run this as a product where the first release can't be the first of many and seriously debug this thing hard before it sees the light of developers, they could shock us.
The biggest hurdle for MS is and always will be the developers. If MS advertises this as a port your PC games as they are senario, you get no innovation. Any special tricks that developers could pull off with the X-Box won't happen if they regard it as a PC Jr. This is the factor that tends to make or break a console these days, IMHO. I don't know what processor speed Final Fantasy 8 requires for the PC version, but I'll bet it is a wee bit higher than the PSX's 33 MHz. This is one of the (or perhaps the) most graphically stunning games I have seen in recent years. The initial PS2 games will probably be pretty poor until the developers stop trying to develop for the PSX and start developing for the PS2. If you just port like its the same thing, there is nothing special about the games. If you learn to use the engines, you make breakthroughs.
No offense, but did you mean to respond to my comment, or someone else's? It looks like you are responding to the same comment I responed to, not mine. If you are indeed responding to me, I am thoroughly baffled. Please enlighten me.
Heh. Don't worry, I'm not flamed up by these comments. I am very happy every time somebody realizes that the TCO is a major factor. Most small to medium companies haven't been getting it over the past decade. IBM has consistantly had a higher initial cost and lower TCO on a majority of their products I have dealt with.
However, you can't just point this out to the average PHB in a given company, so you work with what you've got. IBM Global Services has been remarkably willing to work with whatever you actually are using. They ask if you want their advice, and they give you good advice if they have it. If you have already made your investment, they work with what you've got. There are high level PHB's all around the country and maybe the world who are subscribing to the latest MS product simply because MS told them to. IBM has services for them just like they do for the really old System 360's from IBM. Anybody who is willing to pay IBM for the help gets it, whatever IBMers' think of that company's understanding and willingness to look beyond the immediate.
In short, if you made your statements to a decent IBM GS person, that person would go back and gather all the data to help you decide what systems minimize your TCO and tell you how much it would cost to get IBM GS to help you put the whole thing together for the difficult first part of the process. Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.
I can't vouch for any given member of Global Services I don't know, of course, but I have been pretty impressed with all of the ones I've worked with. They have a multi-billion dollar backlog of work most of the time, so they aren't going to screw you for the fun of screwing you and make their backlog bigger.
That would be nice, but many Slashdot residents are not left-wing enough to accept Bradley, let alone Nader. Geeks are all across the political spectrum from left-wing to right-wing, authoritarian to libertarian. I know as many geeks who seriously listen to Rush Limbaugh, because they agree with him to some degree, as geeks who really like Ralph Nader. Myself, I end up in the precise center every time I take one of those political tests.
This complete difference with strong agreement on certain issues is the weakness and strength of the geek movement (if it can really be said that there is one). We don't throw our weight behind a single political party, so we aren't stuck with the other political baggage that party already has. We can lobby in all of the parties and offer our strength and expertise in various areas in exchange for political representation. If the parties are arguing about how to implement the general goals of our subset of the population, it is a massive step forward from the total non-representation we have now. If geeks always turn out the votes for the parties they join, they can gather the same kind of disproportionate strength that other issues groups (like the labor unions or Christian right) hold in their parties.
Absolutely. The idea is to not play by the "rules", but to change the rules. I highly recommend that you attend political caucuses and vote like mad. I have found that caucuses tend to directly affect the platform of the political party. If enough people vote a certain way, the party as a whole adopts it. Particularly if those votes don't go against any existing policies.
As that sometimes disturbing, sometimes OK group the Christian Coalition noted: About 7% of the population determines the result of most votes in the U.S. Only about 60% of people are registered to vote. Less than half of them turn out for most elections except hotly contested Presidential elections. This sets the amount of voters at 30% usually. That ends up being less than 15% per major party. This means that 7% of the people nominating a candidate for one side can often be enough to get that person elected. If you vote in every single election in your locality, you wield tremendous power on the electoral system. A great commitment by geeks to the political process would have a disproportionate affect on politics as usual. Geek issues WOULD be addressed. (How do you think the Religious Right got so much influence in politics?)
IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k. And I'll guarantee that Mr. William H. Gates III will not allow that to happen! Not with the Win2K licensing fees that exist right now.
This shows that you don't know HOW IBM is going to make a killing on Win2K. IBM Global Services is the group targeting Win2K. They make their money charging by-the-hour support. They are also amongst the best at what they do. If anybody can figure out a way to make Win2K do what it claims to do, I believe it would be IBM GS. They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.
And attacking the entire market broadside is a pretty lofty dream, IMHO. We have watched Microsoft try to do that - be everything for everyone and you become a master at nothing!;-)
IBM has been doing it sucessfully for about two years now. As I have mentioned in other posts IBM takes the top in every market they can, then strategy number two comes into play. My division of IBM just makes components for other peoples' products. Almost all of Dell's hard drives were made by IBM, many of Cisco's chips and processors, etc. There are very few aspects of the industry where IBM is not making money even if they are not officially playing in that part of the market. IBM just does what it does best: make some of the highest quality parts on the market and pulls a profit every time their competitor sells product X. Eventually, they can just buy out the companies that are doing better things (like Lotus) and integrate them into the great mass that is IBM if they want to.
Caveat: I work for IBM, but don't represent any opinions but my own.
Caveat: I work for IBM, but I am not in the Software Division so I don't know any internal strategies.
From what I can tell, Linux is a complement, refinement, and replacement from different perspectives. Your comments on both the complement and refinement categories are pretty close to my own deductions. The replacement category applies, but not in the way you guessed.
The big problem with Java right now, is that half the people who would be working on it are in the Java standards battle trying to nail down an industry standard and wrest absolute power from Sun. Once a standard is laid down, the other half can get back to working full steam on Java. In the interim, those engineers and programmers need a different focus to keep busy. Linux is the current focus of all the concerted energy, because it is the best broad spectrum redefinement for all of these people to be working on. Once the Java standards are in place, work on Linux will slow down a bit as some of those people are assigned to or back to Java.
The biggest thing holding IBMer's back from making the internal changeover to Linux even faster in my department is Lotus Notes. We are still waiting for Lotus to completely debug Notes R5 for Linux before we jump in with both feet.
As to the MS-Shaft comment, I think its there, but not very much. The main competitor we have is Sun Microsystems. Everything in the server side of things is targeted at Sun, because they are leading right now and we are number two. We are pretty much ignoring HP right now, because they are just getting their managment act together the way IBM did about five years ago. There is a definate leftover animosity towards MS in some groups, but the majority of the anti-MS bias is with the "young pups" like me who are the pro-Linux folks mentioned in the article. Target number one is Sun, with MS, HP, Oracle, etc. being a full tier down in importance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that IBM does not want to exterminate the competitors (unlike MS). IBM wants to cut their profit margins to almost nothing. IBM has been through the antitrust gauntlet and doesn't want to go back. We play in so many markets, that we can afford to be just staying afloat in a few of them at any given time. I work in the technology division that actually makes all the components that other companies sell in their products. (Did you know that there is a good chance that your GPS is running IBM hardware whatever the name on it is? How about the Transmeta chip? We also do what seems like half of the guts and all the support for Dell computers.) The idea is that when we are at the top of the stack in a particular area, we make lots of money. When we aren't, we sell components to the people who are and make our money that way. Linux is yet another good way to advance that strategy.
Barring the unexpected, I think IBM will play the waiting game with Linux and hope that the open source community lends them an occaisional hand in exchange. We can expect at least five years of IBM support even if things don't go the way we hope.
How many new game consoles are compatible with the older models? The one that we know for sure isn't Vaporware. The Playstation 2. The PS2 is almost completely backwards compatible on both accessories and games. The old methodology included scrapping all the old architecture and games along with console, because it was primarily cartridge based. Plus, people had their old consoles, so they didn't need new ones (from the companies' view). The PSX initiated serious changeover to the CD and now PS2 DVD format. This means that the new machine can run the parts of the old machine. The real intention behind my statement, however, was that "mass-produce, hook, and charge to upgrade" doesn't work when you are talking about the consoles themselves. If a console is not sturdy, functional, and generally great from the start, it doesn't take off. You don't have the ability to make it, sell it, and fix things you broke in patches every two weeks. People don't buy hardware that is not reliable; at least, not for long. When the first hundreds to run out and buy it do not have nice things to say about it, they don't encourage their friends to buy it. Game sales do not take off and game designers hold off on developing for it. There are not the selection of games available for other consoles, and gamers are less likely to buy it. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that the X-Box is more PC than Console. This may make all the rules different. If games can be ported cheaply and easily, there may be an instant extrodinary game base that quickly pushes the X-Box up in the games department. Again, it all depends on the tactics that MS takes. B. Elgin
This rumor was started with a quote taken out of context from a Sega executive. It's not true (Sega has said so themselves).
I have to ask was this the first rebuttal, or was there a second?
There was a misquoted article that indicated Sega was dropping out of the console race. This created a furor, until someone pointed out that this was a misquotation and everybody relaxed about a week later. Then a couple of days after that Sega figured out what had happened on the media front and released a statement that, yes indeed, they are planning to drop out. They explained that they had decided to leave the hardware market and focus instead on an internet based software strategy of some sort. I don't recall all of the details, but it created a second furor on the gaming sites.
My question to you: I know about the first time this was refuted. Was there a second time? Just because I didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I know, I know. Most folks don't have any faith in MS's ability to develop much of anything of quality. Their move is likely, however to be in some way opportunism.
The Dreamcast was Sega's official last console system. They are changing to a software company.
Microsoft might have known this, because they were working with Sega to allow CE to run on the Dreamcast.
MS wanted into the market, and they know an opening is coming up soon. Whether they have anything good or not, there is room in the console market for three major players. Sony won't squash them, because they aren't worth it. Nintendo won't kill them, because they are much more worried about Sony and have lost most of their ability to do so. Sega is quitting the game anyway.
The end result is that MS has a WIDE opening. If they can get in and establish a beachhead in the console market, they aren't too worried about losing money right off the bat. The simple trick for them is to become good enough with their first console to stay in the running. Once they are a respected (?) name in console gaming, they can continue from there, because they are going to do their damnedest to make sure that anyone with an X-Box is hooked in some way and has to stay linked to them.
I am curious to see how they actually do it. Some of us may find the results are good enough to overcome our collective loathing of MS. Just because they usually make medocre products, doesn't mean they always do.
I suspect that the Emotion Engine performs significantly better than it's 300Mhz would suggest.
It does.
It is a 350 MHz 128 bit chip. Compare this to a 600 MHz 32 bit Athalon. Be sure you include the 150 MHz dedicated Graphics subchip in the PS2 also. Now consider that this system is designed to do one thing absolutly spectacularly: audio-visual. The X-Box is off the shelf components, making it easier to program for, but if you want to do the stuff that the Emotion Engine does as easily as starting up, you have to code like a demon and REALLY know what you are doing. An NVidia graphics card would help the X-Box, but I'd wager that one year after the X-Box's release, its graphics are still far behind where the Playstation 2 is one year after its US release. (Keep in mind... that is at least three months before the X-Box comes out!)
Unless MS puts a lot more time and effort into both innovating and product testing than is normal in their business model, I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a cheap PC with gimmicks. The console strategy is quite different than the mass-produce, hook, charge to upgrade methodology they have used successfully in the past.
I am interested to see what they actually do, rather than just condemning them on they will probably do.
The PS2 achieves 25M pps with only a dedicated 266 processor.
I know this wasn't the main point of your thread, but there is a lot of misleading in that statement. Yes, the PS2 uses a 300 MHz chip to do massive graphics, but it is a 128 bit chip, not a 32 or even a 64. It also has an 150 MHz "graphics synthesizer". M$ would need a fast 32 bit CPU to keep up, particularly running Windows CE.
For some more information about the PS2 to use for comparison, I suggest IGN's PS2 FAQ. For additional info about the PS2 including other information, try ps2.ign.com.
Did the set up a patch so that they can throw pieces of wedding cake at each other?
Any danger of the minister getting fragged mid-sermon?
How much do you want to bet that somebody crashes it?
Notice how this is considered worthy of posting on Slashdot as its own article, rather than a quickie? It says something about the Slashdot audience... I don't know exactly what, but something.
Yep. Is the PSX2 going to completely replace PCs? No. Only a moron would think so at this point. That is not its goal or purpose. It might have the potential to replace the PC for many users, but that is because those users don't need a computer, they need something simpler.
replace computers as primary gaming devices? absolutely.
Yep, again. It is very amusing to see the knee-jerk reactions of many Slashdotters who have obviously never used a Playstation. People get very defensive of their chosen platforms and often refuse to see the value of a different one. For about 90% of the games I play, my PSX is an ideal machine. I mostly play the prolific RPGs, occaisional fighting games, and rare puzzel games on it. If I want to play Warcraft, Starcraft, or Civ II I can go to my PC and play them, but most of the games I play are easier to deal with on the PSX.
Why you might ask? Because of a very simple limitation that is more impotant to your average gamer that high philosophical ideals, or even "coolness" of the game. Money. Let me say it again: Money. The biggest game players are high school and college students. Have you ever known a large percentage of this group to be able to buy a whole new computer system every year or two so that they can play the latest cool games their friends are playing? I haven't. I made do with my P75 until a couple of months ago, because I had more important uses for my cash until I graduated and got a real job. When my PC got pathetically slow and I stopped being able to play recent games, I switched to console gaming and found myself quite pleased. I got hooked by Final Fantasy 7, and found that it is actually easier to find really good games for my PSX than for my slower PC. The controller takes a while to really get accustomed to, just like a mouse does in many game uses. You get good with what you use. I missed the Quake phenomenon because my PC was too slow, but that is not a major danger with a console. An excellent game for the PSX can cost as little as $20 if it is a year old and many of them are better written (programming-wise) than most new computer games. Why do I say this? Take a look at any of Squaresoft's recent games (like FF8) and consider the fact that these games push the envelope for most PC programs on a system that is about 4-5 years old.
Add to this the fact that the PSX2 is a backwards-compatible full-functioning DVD player, and you have a win-win combination. People will be able to buy a PSX2 for $200 within one year of its release, have a prolific game base, and have some sort of web access that will refine itself as it goes. Console systems like the PSX2 are much more software intensive that hardware intensive because the hardware is fixed, so you get some real innovation to make games better, not just faster number crunching. All the peripherals you could want are lined up and ready to go. All Sony has really done is blurred the line between where consoles end and PCs begin.
You don't have to like a new technology. You don't have to buy it. Don't trash it because you don't know about it and don't want to, though. It makes you look very childish. This will be great for some people, bad for some others, and totally ignored by even more. Find out about it if you are interested and vote with your wallet after you know what is going on. *Sigh* Done preaching.
Well, we won't see wide scale results from nanotechnology for a good 20 to 50 years, but we can start writing the games now!
Design a combat strategy game ala Warcraft/Starcraft where you control an army of lemming-like nanites who have to make more of themselves in order to beat the nasty little virii. Unfortunately, the virii don't care if they kill the host for raw materials, and you "theoretically" do care.
It might even raise interest in medicine amongst a younger generation of... well... us. The question is, what will the little buggers say when you click on them 20-30 times, and how will we make this violent enough to be fun instead of educational?
You'll notice the press release mentions "national security"... this is a euphemism for "preserving the existing ruling class".
I usually think of it as a euphamism for obiliterating any "threat" to democracy that Congress can agree is a threat. The ruling class is whoever can bribe all the relevant politicians, same as in almost any country.
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists... This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin...
That would be a waste of technology. The police do a perfectly fine job with tear gas and riot gear. Are we a bit paranoid, perhaps? The most likely test targets are "terrorists". For those outside... uh... Earth, those are any people who believe in promoting change through liberal use of high explosives, assasinations, and holding/killing hostages.
As to the media, left wing media is almost as prolific as right wing media. Unfortunately, the most prominent examples of NATIONAL left wing media are tabloids. They are err... not too plausible for many people. On the whole, the media reflects the public. In a very liberal city, the media lynches conservative individuals the same way the media in a conservative city lynches liberals. (The net has the best balance of conservative vs. liberal I have seen thus far.) I imagine that the exception would be that everything in the US is right-wing to a socialist, because of the rather capitalistic society. Along those lines, I've hardly met any actual Socialists in the US. (I am not counting the pseudo-socialists who like the idea because they could then slack off and do nothing while still getting paid.) ((I am making an assumption based on the presence of "marx" in your handle.))
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
Anyone who is going to do the things you are suggesting would ignore the ban anyway. A ban would be nice, but it is not going to factor into the scenario you are illustrating. People inclined to abuse power will do it whether you tell them it is wrong or not.
This is plain and simple. If you look at college students and older individuals who are gamers, I have not seen even ONE who reads game magazines anymore. My fiance and I certainly don't. None of the network gamers whom I played with in college read magazines either. I knew dozens of gamers and NONE read these magazines.
Want to know why?
We all had the internet.
All of us, the gamers, looked at reviews on the net, because they are free and more likely to be useful. Noone read the game magazines, because when we looked at their reviews for games we already had, they gave good reviews to bad games and bad reviews to Great ones in our opinions. Why read something that you have to pay for and is not targeted at you, when you can get something better for free?
Slashdot Mirror
And have to become the next Microsoft? We've already been through the DOJ grinder once, and both employees who remember it don't want to go back.
As I have explained before, IBM believes in being a player in every market and a monopolizer of none. Our strategy is to get dominance in any market we play in, if possible. If we don't have dominance, develop and/or produce cutting edge components like GPS chips, hard drives, Transmeta chips, etc. and make a few cents off of every dollar our competitor makes. If you use someone else's software or hardware, our services consultants will still fly out and tell you how to make the best of it and fix it when it breaks (like Win 2K). In short, IBM stays the biggest single IT company in the world without holding a monopoly club over any given market. It enables those of us who work for Big Blue to feel like the good guys, especially when IBM is amongst the leaders in the push for standards that are non-MS-centric for such efforts as Java, etc.
Disclaimer: I don't "represent" IBM. I just work there.
B. Elgin
That's the problem. MS is really leading technical people to believe that the X-Box is more PC than console. They are selling it to developers as the "easy to program for" system. "It uses DirectX and we know you love that!" The CPU seems more likely to be a slightly altered 600 MHz Celeron chip than anything else. Depending on which question you ask and who is asking, MS developers will tell you that X-Box is not a PC and is totally a console, or they will tell you that it is exactly like a PC.
The PS2 is a console through and through. I'm a little surprised, because previous reports I had seen about the PS2 marked the Emotion Engine internals at 350 MHz, not 250 MHz. When it gets to the US, I'll look into that more. Either way, MHz is really a very poor metric for console performance. The problem with PC CPUs, it that they are Jacks-of-all trades. They do everything about equally well: Mediocre. As a result, high MHz speeds allows them to chug through stuff faster and mimic the effects of more dedicated machines. A dedicated and optimized piece of hardware can often run at one third the speed of a normal CPU in MHz and still outperform it. This is because the dedicated hardware might take 6 cycles to complete a specialized task that takes the PC CPU 20 cycles. The trade-off, is that a task outside the specialized field is likely to take the dedicated hardware 60 cycles while taking the PC CPU the same 20 cycles. (Note: This is an example I am making up as an illustration, I don't have the specs for any dedicated hardware memorized offhand.) When the PS2 tries to do email and such, it will lose the massive edge it has, because it is optimised completely for 3D games. On the other hand, email can be done just as well by a 25 MHz 386 as a 1 GHz P3.
B. Elgin
What we are seeing is restriction of absolute freedom in certain areas in exchange for higher profitability for certain entities. These businesses, governments, and special interest groups have their own requirements for their ideal web. Needless to say different peoples' ideals are quite different. As different groups attempt to determine what strength they have in this medium and new area of both our cultures and our laws, they will push the boundaries. The same behaviors have occurred every time a new frontier crops up.
Is the time of the Mecca of absulute privacy and freedom over? It never really existed, honestly. We have always used real information about people on the net. If you want to be listened to seriously, you often have to let people know who you really are. You can lie convincingly, and that was just as good. The same principle applies now. Certain information is required and certain freedoms are limited to use many new aspects of the internet. This has been happening from Day One, but now corporations are doing it through lawsuits instead of individuals killfiling you on usenet. All we are seeing is the reactions changing according to the perceived severity of the situation from the "aggrieved" party's side. If you can lie convincingly in the new ways, it is still just as good as real information and privacy.
Like all frontiers, the web will continue to "civilize" as more people seek to get rich, put in the hard work, make it their home, and proceed from the founder generation to the ones that take this frontier for granted. Things will change, but barring an international action of draconian nature, freedom and privacy will remain. Our perceptions of them are what will change.
B. Elgin
Seriously, though, I hope that the approval of viral vectors in vaccinations comes up at some point. We look rather silly knowing about potiential vaccinations for diseases like AIDS using malarial and rabies vectors combined with partial HIV proteins, yet being unable to ever devlop the vaccines. Heck, we can't even test them on willing subjects if I am properly informed.
B. Elgin
"Bionanotechnology is neither Bio-, nor Nano-, nor technology. Discuss."
B. Elgin
If I understand what they are doing correctly, they are attacking the subset of nanotech that is designed for (hopefully) medical purposes. (OK, so the chances of a big chunk of nanites going into the "We promise not to use it!" vault of weapons is pretty high.) Why don't they just use seperate words?
I feel bad for the people who will have to say: "I work on nuclearfissonheattransferalnanotechnology." Head it off before it begins!
Seriously, is there anything to discuss about this workshop other than the fact that it being held and the name smacks of silliness?
B. Elgin
For those with the knee-jerk reaction: "This is garbage. Anybody knows that 99% of crackpot theories are crackpot theories whether suits like them or not." Please look at the other outcomes than a total revolutionary change to how we see physics (although I suppose there is a decent chance that we are due).
The thing to actually look for in this sort of research is what might actually come out of it. Ideally from the funders' point of view, they will get a working antigravity system. Other, more probable outcomes are greatly enhanced knowledge about existing gravity repulsion techniques. Research like this often leads to side applications that affect people's everyday lives in vastly different ways than was ever thought of in the research. I can't remember what plastic was originally intended to be used for, but I don't think they intended to use it for darn near everything like it is used today. Similarly, how many experiments for space technology are better known for their applications on Earth? Let's wait and see what actually comes out of this research before we declare it useless or make plans for designing our new hovercars.
Note: Since it is military research, there is always a probability of a long delay before it hits the private sector, whatever the results are.
B. Elgin
Console gamers are going to react the same way they initially did to the Playstation. They will regard it like an old smelly fish until the games start coming that make the thing worth more than their current system. Console gamers expect maybe two crashes in the course of a badly ported game where the previous version was operating on a processor with different sized instruction words. Random crashes throughout a game are not acceptable on console systems. Reviewers tend to send the game back if it crashes even once.
While I am continuing to be tempted to dismiss this product out of hand, I am trying to reserve my judgement to see what they actually do. MS can do great work if they actually take the time to debug their code, test its usability, and don't try to make it interoperable with everything under the sun. Unfortunately, their business model usually nixes all three of those. If MS can run this as a product where the first release can't be the first of many and seriously debug this thing hard before it sees the light of developers, they could shock us.
The biggest hurdle for MS is and always will be the developers. If MS advertises this as a port your PC games as they are senario, you get no innovation. Any special tricks that developers could pull off with the X-Box won't happen if they regard it as a PC Jr. This is the factor that tends to make or break a console these days, IMHO. I don't know what processor speed Final Fantasy 8 requires for the PC version, but I'll bet it is a wee bit higher than the PSX's 33 MHz. This is one of the (or perhaps the) most graphically stunning games I have seen in recent years. The initial PS2 games will probably be pretty poor until the developers stop trying to develop for the PSX and start developing for the PS2. If you just port like its the same thing, there is nothing special about the games. If you learn to use the engines, you make breakthroughs.
Oh well, I guess it is wait and see.
B. Elgin
No offense, but did you mean to respond to my comment, or someone else's? It looks like you are responding to the same comment I responed to, not mine. If you are indeed responding to me, I am thoroughly baffled. Please enlighten me.
B. Elgin
However, you can't just point this out to the average PHB in a given company, so you work with what you've got. IBM Global Services has been remarkably willing to work with whatever you actually are using. They ask if you want their advice, and they give you good advice if they have it. If you have already made your investment, they work with what you've got. There are high level PHB's all around the country and maybe the world who are subscribing to the latest MS product simply because MS told them to. IBM has services for them just like they do for the really old System 360's from IBM. Anybody who is willing to pay IBM for the help gets it, whatever IBMers' think of that company's understanding and willingness to look beyond the immediate.
In short, if you made your statements to a decent IBM GS person, that person would go back and gather all the data to help you decide what systems minimize your TCO and tell you how much it would cost to get IBM GS to help you put the whole thing together for the difficult first part of the process. Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.
I can't vouch for any given member of Global Services I don't know, of course, but I have been pretty impressed with all of the ones I've worked with. They have a multi-billion dollar backlog of work most of the time, so they aren't going to screw you for the fun of screwing you and make their backlog bigger.
B. Elgin
This complete difference with strong agreement on certain issues is the weakness and strength of the geek movement (if it can really be said that there is one). We don't throw our weight behind a single political party, so we aren't stuck with the other political baggage that party already has. We can lobby in all of the parties and offer our strength and expertise in various areas in exchange for political representation. If the parties are arguing about how to implement the general goals of our subset of the population, it is a massive step forward from the total non-representation we have now. If geeks always turn out the votes for the parties they join, they can gather the same kind of disproportionate strength that other issues groups (like the labor unions or Christian right) hold in their parties.
B. Elgin
As that sometimes disturbing, sometimes OK group the Christian Coalition noted: About 7% of the population determines the result of most votes in the U.S. Only about 60% of people are registered to vote. Less than half of them turn out for most elections except hotly contested Presidential elections. This sets the amount of voters at 30% usually. That ends up being less than 15% per major party. This means that 7% of the people nominating a candidate for one side can often be enough to get that person elected. If you vote in every single election in your locality, you wield tremendous power on the electoral system. A great commitment by geeks to the political process would have a disproportionate affect on politics as usual. Geek issues WOULD be addressed. (How do you think the Religious Right got so much influence in politics?)
B. Elgin
This shows that you don't know HOW IBM is going to make a killing on Win2K. IBM Global Services is the group targeting Win2K. They make their money charging by-the-hour support. They are also amongst the best at what they do. If anybody can figure out a way to make Win2K do what it claims to do, I believe it would be IBM GS. They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.
And attacking the entire market broadside is a pretty lofty dream, IMHO. We have watched Microsoft try to do that - be everything for everyone and you become a master at nothing! ;-)
IBM has been doing it sucessfully for about two years now. As I have mentioned in other posts IBM takes the top in every market they can, then strategy number two comes into play. My division of IBM just makes components for other peoples' products. Almost all of Dell's hard drives were made by IBM, many of Cisco's chips and processors, etc. There are very few aspects of the industry where IBM is not making money even if they are not officially playing in that part of the market. IBM just does what it does best: make some of the highest quality parts on the market and pulls a profit every time their competitor sells product X. Eventually, they can just buy out the companies that are doing better things (like Lotus) and integrate them into the great mass that is IBM if they want to.
Caveat: I work for IBM, but don't represent any opinions but my own.
B. Elgin
From what I can tell, Linux is a complement, refinement, and replacement from different perspectives. Your comments on both the complement and refinement categories are pretty close to my own deductions. The replacement category applies, but not in the way you guessed.
The big problem with Java right now, is that half the people who would be working on it are in the Java standards battle trying to nail down an industry standard and wrest absolute power from Sun. Once a standard is laid down, the other half can get back to working full steam on Java. In the interim, those engineers and programmers need a different focus to keep busy. Linux is the current focus of all the concerted energy, because it is the best broad spectrum redefinement for all of these people to be working on. Once the Java standards are in place, work on Linux will slow down a bit as some of those people are assigned to or back to Java.
B. Elgin
The biggest thing holding IBMer's back from making the internal changeover to Linux even faster in my department is Lotus Notes. We are still waiting for Lotus to completely debug Notes R5 for Linux before we jump in with both feet.
As to the MS-Shaft comment, I think its there, but not very much. The main competitor we have is Sun Microsystems. Everything in the server side of things is targeted at Sun, because they are leading right now and we are number two. We are pretty much ignoring HP right now, because they are just getting their managment act together the way IBM did about five years ago. There is a definate leftover animosity towards MS in some groups, but the majority of the anti-MS bias is with the "young pups" like me who are the pro-Linux folks mentioned in the article. Target number one is Sun, with MS, HP, Oracle, etc. being a full tier down in importance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that IBM does not want to exterminate the competitors (unlike MS). IBM wants to cut their profit margins to almost nothing. IBM has been through the antitrust gauntlet and doesn't want to go back. We play in so many markets, that we can afford to be just staying afloat in a few of them at any given time. I work in the technology division that actually makes all the components that other companies sell in their products. (Did you know that there is a good chance that your GPS is running IBM hardware whatever the name on it is? How about the Transmeta chip? We also do what seems like half of the guts and all the support for Dell computers.) The idea is that when we are at the top of the stack in a particular area, we make lots of money. When we aren't, we sell components to the people who are and make our money that way. Linux is yet another good way to advance that strategy.
Barring the unexpected, I think IBM will play the waiting game with Linux and hope that the open source community lends them an occaisional hand in exchange. We can expect at least five years of IBM support even if things don't go the way we hope.
B. Elgin
How many new game consoles are compatible with the older models? The one that we know for sure isn't Vaporware. The Playstation 2. The PS2 is almost completely backwards compatible on both accessories and games. The old methodology included scrapping all the old architecture and games along with console, because it was primarily cartridge based. Plus, people had their old consoles, so they didn't need new ones (from the companies' view). The PSX initiated serious changeover to the CD and now PS2 DVD format. This means that the new machine can run the parts of the old machine. The real intention behind my statement, however, was that "mass-produce, hook, and charge to upgrade" doesn't work when you are talking about the consoles themselves. If a console is not sturdy, functional, and generally great from the start, it doesn't take off. You don't have the ability to make it, sell it, and fix things you broke in patches every two weeks. People don't buy hardware that is not reliable; at least, not for long. When the first hundreds to run out and buy it do not have nice things to say about it, they don't encourage their friends to buy it. Game sales do not take off and game designers hold off on developing for it. There are not the selection of games available for other consoles, and gamers are less likely to buy it. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that the X-Box is more PC than Console. This may make all the rules different. If games can be ported cheaply and easily, there may be an instant extrodinary game base that quickly pushes the X-Box up in the games department. Again, it all depends on the tactics that MS takes.
B. Elgin
I have to ask was this the first rebuttal, or was there a second?
There was a misquoted article that indicated Sega was dropping out of the console race. This created a furor, until someone pointed out that this was a misquotation and everybody relaxed about a week later. Then a couple of days after that Sega figured out what had happened on the media front and released a statement that, yes indeed, they are planning to drop out. They explained that they had decided to leave the hardware market and focus instead on an internet based software strategy of some sort. I don't recall all of the details, but it created a second furor on the gaming sites.
My question to you: I know about the first time this was refuted. Was there a second time? Just because I didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
B. Elgin
The Dreamcast was Sega's official last console system. They are changing to a software company.
Microsoft might have known this, because they were working with Sega to allow CE to run on the Dreamcast.
MS wanted into the market, and they know an opening is coming up soon. Whether they have anything good or not, there is room in the console market for three major players. Sony won't squash them, because they aren't worth it. Nintendo won't kill them, because they are much more worried about Sony and have lost most of their ability to do so. Sega is quitting the game anyway.
The end result is that MS has a WIDE opening. If they can get in and establish a beachhead in the console market, they aren't too worried about losing money right off the bat. The simple trick for them is to become good enough with their first console to stay in the running. Once they are a respected (?) name in console gaming, they can continue from there, because they are going to do their damnedest to make sure that anyone with an X-Box is hooked in some way and has to stay linked to them.
I am curious to see how they actually do it. Some of us may find the results are good enough to overcome our collective loathing of MS. Just because they usually make medocre products, doesn't mean they always do.
B. Elgin
It does.
It is a 350 MHz 128 bit chip. Compare this to a 600 MHz 32 bit Athalon. Be sure you include the 150 MHz dedicated Graphics subchip in the PS2 also. Now consider that this system is designed to do one thing absolutly spectacularly: audio-visual. The X-Box is off the shelf components, making it easier to program for, but if you want to do the stuff that the Emotion Engine does as easily as starting up, you have to code like a demon and REALLY know what you are doing. An NVidia graphics card would help the X-Box, but I'd wager that one year after the X-Box's release, its graphics are still far behind where the Playstation 2 is one year after its US release. (Keep in mind... that is at least three months before the X-Box comes out!)
Unless MS puts a lot more time and effort into both innovating and product testing than is normal in their business model, I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a cheap PC with gimmicks. The console strategy is quite different than the mass-produce, hook, charge to upgrade methodology they have used successfully in the past.
I am interested to see what they actually do, rather than just condemning them on they will probably do.
B. Elgin
I know this wasn't the main point of your thread, but there is a lot of misleading in that statement. Yes, the PS2 uses a 300 MHz chip to do massive graphics, but it is a 128 bit chip, not a 32 or even a 64. It also has an 150 MHz "graphics synthesizer". M$ would need a fast 32 bit CPU to keep up, particularly running Windows CE.
For some more information about the PS2 to use for comparison, I suggest IGN's PS2 FAQ. For additional info about the PS2 including other information, try ps2.ign.com.
B. Elgin
Any danger of the minister getting fragged mid-sermon?
How much do you want to bet that somebody crashes it?
Notice how this is considered worthy of posting on Slashdot as its own article, rather than a quickie? It says something about the Slashdot audience... I don't know exactly what, but something.
B. Elgin
Yep. Is the PSX2 going to completely replace PCs? No. Only a moron would think so at this point. That is not its goal or purpose. It might have the potential to replace the PC for many users, but that is because those users don't need a computer, they need something simpler.
replace computers as primary gaming devices? absolutely.
Yep, again. It is very amusing to see the knee-jerk reactions of many Slashdotters who have obviously never used a Playstation. People get very defensive of their chosen platforms and often refuse to see the value of a different one. For about 90% of the games I play, my PSX is an ideal machine. I mostly play the prolific RPGs, occaisional fighting games, and rare puzzel games on it. If I want to play Warcraft, Starcraft, or Civ II I can go to my PC and play them, but most of the games I play are easier to deal with on the PSX.
Why you might ask? Because of a very simple limitation that is more impotant to your average gamer that high philosophical ideals, or even "coolness" of the game. Money. Let me say it again: Money. The biggest game players are high school and college students. Have you ever known a large percentage of this group to be able to buy a whole new computer system every year or two so that they can play the latest cool games their friends are playing? I haven't. I made do with my P75 until a couple of months ago, because I had more important uses for my cash until I graduated and got a real job. When my PC got pathetically slow and I stopped being able to play recent games, I switched to console gaming and found myself quite pleased. I got hooked by Final Fantasy 7, and found that it is actually easier to find really good games for my PSX than for my slower PC. The controller takes a while to really get accustomed to, just like a mouse does in many game uses. You get good with what you use. I missed the Quake phenomenon because my PC was too slow, but that is not a major danger with a console. An excellent game for the PSX can cost as little as $20 if it is a year old and many of them are better written (programming-wise) than most new computer games. Why do I say this? Take a look at any of Squaresoft's recent games (like FF8) and consider the fact that these games push the envelope for most PC programs on a system that is about 4-5 years old.
Add to this the fact that the PSX2 is a backwards-compatible full-functioning DVD player, and you have a win-win combination. People will be able to buy a PSX2 for $200 within one year of its release, have a prolific game base, and have some sort of web access that will refine itself as it goes. Console systems like the PSX2 are much more software intensive that hardware intensive because the hardware is fixed, so you get some real innovation to make games better, not just faster number crunching. All the peripherals you could want are lined up and ready to go. All Sony has really done is blurred the line between where consoles end and PCs begin.
You don't have to like a new technology. You don't have to buy it. Don't trash it because you don't know about it and don't want to, though. It makes you look very childish. This will be great for some people, bad for some others, and totally ignored by even more. Find out about it if you are interested and vote with your wallet after you know what is going on. *Sigh* Done preaching.
B. Elgin
Design a combat strategy game ala Warcraft/Starcraft where you control an army of lemming-like nanites who have to make more of themselves in order to beat the nasty little virii. Unfortunately, the virii don't care if they kill the host for raw materials, and you "theoretically" do care.
It might even raise interest in medicine amongst a younger generation of... well... us. The question is, what will the little buggers say when you click on them 20-30 times, and how will we make this violent enough to be fun instead of educational?
B. Elgin
I usually think of it as a euphamism for obiliterating any "threat" to democracy that Congress can agree is a threat. The ruling class is whoever can bribe all the relevant politicians, same as in almost any country.
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists... This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin...
That would be a waste of technology. The police do a perfectly fine job with tear gas and riot gear. Are we a bit paranoid, perhaps? The most likely test targets are "terrorists". For those outside... uh... Earth, those are any people who believe in promoting change through liberal use of high explosives, assasinations, and holding/killing hostages.
As to the media, left wing media is almost as prolific as right wing media. Unfortunately, the most prominent examples of NATIONAL left wing media are tabloids. They are err... not too plausible for many people. On the whole, the media reflects the public. In a very liberal city, the media lynches conservative individuals the same way the media in a conservative city lynches liberals. (The net has the best balance of conservative vs. liberal I have seen thus far.) I imagine that the exception would be that everything in the US is right-wing to a socialist, because of the rather capitalistic society. Along those lines, I've hardly met any actual Socialists in the US. (I am not counting the pseudo-socialists who like the idea because they could then slack off and do nothing while still getting paid.) ((I am making an assumption based on the presence of "marx" in your handle.))
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
Anyone who is going to do the things you are suggesting would ignore the ban anyway. A ban would be nice, but it is not going to factor into the scenario you are illustrating. People inclined to abuse power will do it whether you tell them it is wrong or not.
B. Elgin
Want to know why?
We all had the internet.
All of us, the gamers, looked at reviews on the net, because they are free and more likely to be useful. Noone read the game magazines, because when we looked at their reviews for games we already had, they gave good reviews to bad games and bad reviews to Great ones in our opinions. Why read something that you have to pay for and is not targeted at you, when you can get something better for free?
B. Elgin