if virtual pc will be suspended for the mac.
are they more concerned about stopping adoption of os x, or more concerned about selling windows licenses to mac users?
Let's consider a hypothetical purchaser. He wants a Mac. But has to infrequently run 2 Windows programs. VPC is a real solution.
If Microsoft takes away Mac VPC, then that user must run Windows on a Dell instead of on a Mac. Microsoft does NOT lose a sale of Windows. They just sell the OEM Windows through Dell instead of Connectix. But Apple loses a sale, and the Mac is now a less attractive platform.
makes you wonder if virtual pc will be suspended for the mac.
are they more concerned about stopping adoption of os x, or more concerned about selling windows licenses to mac users?
Let me tell you the tail of another software product.
Visual FoxPro.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Before the dark times, before Windows 3.1.... there was a company named Fox Software. They made a database called FoxPro, for the Macintosh, in 1988 (or maybe it was 1989?).
There were few databases for the Mac. Those that were generally had high suckage.
FoxPro was dBASE compatible. Could run dBASE programs. But had a GUI! And ran on Mac. And was fast!
Soon, they had a DOS version. Later, a Windows version. (They also had a Unix version, but I'm not sure when that was.)
With FoxPro, you could write a database application and run it on DOS in text mode, Unix text mode, Macintosh, and Windows. The GUI measured everything in characters. Yes, it was weird, and had lots of oddities. But it solved real deployment problems.
Microsoft acquired Fox Software. The Windows version improves greatly. So does the Mac version.
Microsoft heavily modifies it, offering a radically improved GUI, and adds object oriented constructs to the ancient crufty xbase language. This is called Visual FoxPro. Released for Windows first. Mac users wait. And wait. And wait. Finally 1-1/2 years later, the VFP for Mac appears.
No more DOS version. No more Unix version. Just Windows and Mac.
But really, no more Mac either. Another Mac version is never released. This would offer users something that is not in Microsoft's interest. Choice. It is in Microsoft's interest to be sure that the databases on the Mac are all crap. And that any non-crap ones are not cross platform. (This latter one leaves developers the choice of being Mac only which is a serious business disadvantage, or bearing the cost of developing a seperate Mac version of any product.) Or that any non-crap databases are not sufficiently programmable as to be able to build an application with total control of the UI. (You could use 4D , Omnis, or FileMaker, but then it is obvious how your product is obviously developed.)
Back to reality. So could Microsoft intend to dump the Mac VPC? Doing so would only cost them the Windows sales. Loosing the Windows sales to Mac VPC customers probably isn't even a rounding error in the sales figures of Windows. But it would make the Mac a lot less attractive to customers who need to run ANY Windows software. Some customers might want a Mac, but need to run only 1 or 2 Windows programs, infrequently. VPC is a solution. Take away VPC, and those customers don't use Mac.
Looking at this another way. Taking away VPC doesn't lose Microsoft ANY sales of Windows licenses. The Mac users who MUST run a Windows program, will now NOT buy a Mac, but will still buy a Windows license (on a Dell). Microsoft still sells a copy of Windows. Apple loses a sale.
and a few hours rented time with an electron microscope to pull on the Palladium's keys, and suddenly MS is no longer the sole source or vendor of their Palladium platform
If each chip has a unique private key, then you've only learned one private key.
I imagine that each chip's unique private key is also digitally signed, with a certificate to proove that it is a genuine private key of a TCPA chip. (Otherwise, any idiot could just generate a key pair, and claim the private key is from a TCPA chip.)
So you obtain the key and certificate of the key's authenticity from inspection of the chip innards. So what? All you can do is emulate the one chip you inspected. You now have thousands of emulators all with identical "tcpa chips". The DRM folks just revoke anything signed with this key. We now all know that key such-and-so has been compromised and used in emulators. All new releases of Snow White will no longer play using that key. Actually, no software will trust the hardware integrity if that is the TCPA chip key.
So now you start all over. Do expensive electron microscopy again to compromise a new key. This is probably far more difficult for you to do than for them to revoke a key. Plus, what you are doing can be legislated to be illegal. Now anyone who owns an electron microscope might be very leary of letting just anyone use it.
M$ bought VPC because they got wind that Apple was working closely with them to make VPC the "redbox" under IBM's 970 chip.
Then maybe Apple will have to use Bochs instead. Gives Apple complete control over the end user experience instead of a partner developer.
Suppose Apple took this approach. Take the Bochs code, throw a couple full time engineers at it for six months. Could it be made into an end-user product?
>>Yeah, and we know that Microsoft would never sacrifice profits in order to put a competitor out of business.
>The only reason your comment was moderated "insightful" is because it's anti-Microsoft.
The reason it was modded as Insightful might be because it was Insightful. Could that possibly be the reason?
Let's not talk just about Microsoft. Let's talk about IBM in the 50's, 60's and 70's. It is well understood that this is classic monopoly behavior. Profits are less important than exclusivity and control. Profits follow later if you have control. You can set prices arbitrarily. The very definition of control.
They can't profit from a tiny handful of Mac guys buying a few copies of DOS. Sufficient demand doesn't exist to generate a profit.
This sounds good. But think about it. Connectix seems to think that a profitable Mac market exists. This is implied because they have sold a Mac version for many years. In fact, the Mac version was first, and was only on Mac for many years. The Windows VPC is a recent development. So are you seriously suggesting that the Mac VPC is not profitable?
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but it isn't even remotely applicable here.
Why not? Microsoft can buy Connectix. Suppose, hypothetically, they ax a profitable product line (the Mac VPC). They are losing profits that were being made. They are hurting a competitor (Apple). The idea: Mac users can no longer run Windows software -- possibly making the Mac WAY less attactive to some potential Mac customers. (Hey, I'm thinking about a Mac, but I need to run Windows version of XXXX and YYYY. Not much, but XXXX and YYYY are requirements. But I can get a Mac with VPC and meet my requirements.)
Is this not sacrificing profits to hurt a competitor? Tell me again how the original poster's comment is NOT insightful? Tell me how it is NOT applicable here? Plese explain?
Mac users buying Virtual PC buy a copy of Windows, too.
Nope. You can buy Virtual PC with DR. DOS for about $50. We bought our Virtual PC 3.0 that way.
Then just install all the Windows you want.
My purpose was for testing. I would create a several hundred megabyte hard disk image under VPC. Install, say Win 95. Configure to taste. Then burn the hard disk image to CD. Then repeat process, but use Win 95 OSR2. Then repeat with Win 98. Then with Win 98 SE. etc., etc., etc.
Now I've got an entire library of CD's with configured, installed OSes on them. (Not all of them are Microsoft OSes either.)
Need to test our product on a particular config of Win 95 OSR2? Just grab the CD, copy it to Mac hard disk. Run VPC. Test. I can have a "virgin" install of Win 95 OSR2 in about 4 minutes.
The other thing that is great is experimentation. I can play, tinker, reverse engineer, etc. to my heart's delight. With impunity. I can do things to the software that I would never consider doing on a real hardware PC. (Unless it was a spare "labrat" pc.) If I screw it up, I can have the "virgin" unmodified system back in 4 minutes. (Can't do that with a spare PC.)
Here's another thing. Get a, say, virgin install of Win ME. Install some program, like Kazaa. Shut down. Now, using Macintosh tools, mount and examine the hard disk image. Compare to the "virgin" image using a script in MPW. See what files were added / removed / altered. Even the registry. You have the original and altered state of these files. Boot back up in Virtual PC and do a regdump (complete textual dump of registry). Take the text dump of the "virgin" and "kazaa" registries and diff them to see what reg keys are added / removed / altered.
Is all this capability and freedom worth the measly price of selling a Windows license to a Mac user? And maybe even NOT selling a Windows license to a Mac user?
The BIOS is a legacy piece of crap that serves practically no purpose, but to boot the OS.
Oh, I beg to diff.
The BIOS has many valuable purposes.
Branding
Advertising
A game or web browser could keep you entertained during the lengthy bootup of whatever latest Microsoft monstrosity you are booting today.
Protect the computer from you
In short, the BIOS adds a lot of value to the computer. (Value for corporations, to the benefit of corporations.)
C'mon these BIOS programmers need to justify their existance. A BIOS maker can't just ship the same BIOS year after year without improvements. Just look at car companies. Each year there is a new model. What changed? The bumper. The hood ornament. Etc. Or as another example, just look at Microsoft. What changed this model year? The chrome. How things are organized. The value of this? Training revenue. OS Envy creates sales sizzle. What do you really expect a BIOS maker to do? Not start adding flashy useless features? It is just a natural outgrowth that once the product cannot be enhanced in very useful ways, they will concentrate on technical challenges like audio error messages, boot-time browsers, etc.
Just imagine that the boot logo is not only animated, but actually has downloaded advertising each time you boot up? Don't tell me there isn't value in this.
If the ad is seen each time you boot up, it encourages closed, smoke-filled, back-room meetings like this:
Phonyix: Okay, GillBates, we'll give you a 5% kickback on ad revenue if you make the computer crash. GillBates: But I've already got that feature implemented. Phonyix: Okay, we'll set up a schedule. If the computer crashes once per hour, your kickback is 5%. If the computer crashes 2 times per hour, then 5.28%. If more often, then we'll work out a graduated schedule. GillBates: How about some innovative thinking. Suppose our software connects to your.NET enabled server and obtains a schedule of how often you want it to crash? An agent service in the machine can connect to our server and balance the need to crash and generate ad revenue, with the need to not crash if the revenue is not high enough.
C'mon guys. This is progress. Imagine back in the early days of computers, like the original 1981 IBM PC. Computers would never have provided the incredible economic opportunities that they do today. This is progress and innovation.
The article starts out mentioning terrorist threats. If this is the motivation to move data off site, then sealand does not seem all that safe. Couldn't an explosives laden raft that damaged a US Navy ship in Yemen also do some serious damage to Sealand?
Isn't Sealand's real novelty it's laws? Not it's true physical security.
I agree with your sentiments, but I must also agree with the original poster's opinion that it is deeply well thought out engineering.
The problem they solved with the technology and limitations they had to produce something affordable was amazing. Especially using 1940'ish technology. (Vaccum tubes, expensive bulky transformers, huge metal chassis.) Didn't you ever take apart old TV's as a youngster back in the 60's? This would give you an appreciation of how much they did with how little.
Believe me, they were not thinking about computer monitors. They solved a problem using their technology (not ours), using amazing engineering. Bitch all you want about interlacing. It was a good idea that sovled a real problem. Reduce flicker by drawing the screen 60 times each second. But each frame is only half full. You only send the bandwidth of 30 complete frames in a second, but get the non-flicker of 60 Hz.
Do I agree with you that by today's standards it looks like a giant kludge? Yes.
Do I agree with your whole disgust of the football / tv-industry? Yes.
So in 50 years, will people look at our computers today in the same kind of disgust? Yes.
Hey mommy and daddy, what were computers like way back in the olden days when you were a kid when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
[....answer....]
Eeeewwwwwwww! They had segment registers! Booted up in "real" mode. Stupid short sighted limits like 32-bit filesystems, etc. And it's all financed, and the industry only moves forward based on who can force upgrades and lock-in on whom.
Control is important because the money DOES follow.
Without control, you can't force the broadcasters to pay you a fee, no matter how small it might seem.
If this player could play just any audio stream, then after the sale of the box, that is the end of any revenue they see. You don't think they will make any revenue if you listen to a Shoutcast stream? You don't think anyone sending such a stream is going to do anything but laugh out loud if Phillips asks them for money.
In fact, one of the economics basics about any monopoly is that control and market share are the most important thing. IBM figured this out by the mid 1950's. Control is more important than...
Profit
Legality
Public opinion
...anything else
If you have control then the profits will follow. You can set prices arbitrarily. (The very definition of control.) Get slapped with a legal fine? Just pay it. You can gouge prices later to make it up.
Another way to see this is... if you have control then your only purpose must be to turn the purchaser of the box into an ongoing revenue stream.
Next understand that $17B is not very much money. Considering that BP just spent [rferl.org] $6.7B on a oil company in Russia and has plans for more purchases.
Microsoft has $40-some Billion in cash that could be immediately spent on monopoly building efforts.
Imagine the US Govt. getting into a space race, not with the Chinese, but with Microsoft.
Or imagine, the Microsoft Space Elevator EULA. In order to migrate off this rock and colonize elsewhere, you agree to only use MS products on the colony, and pay the tax in the form of buying Microsoft stamps to be used on any software products developed or used.
I think the space elevator is a great idea for an anternate way in to low Earth orbit
Would it really get you to orbit?
In my armchair physics understanding, I would think it would get you to the right altitude, but that you would just fall back to earth again. 9.8 m/s^2, and all that nonsense.
Have you ever been in a tall building? Even on the top floor, surprise, unexpectedly, the earth's gravity is still pulling on you. It would be doing so no matter which floor of the elevator you stopped on. Even at the top, say 100 miles, high. You're firmly anchored to the floor at 9.8 m/s^2.
Being in orbit means there are two forces at work. (1) Forward momentum, sending you in a straight line away from the earth at a tangent. (2) The earth's gravity bending your straight line as it continually tries to keep you comming back to earth. You end up in an eliptical motion around the earth with an apogee and perigee.
Once you get to, say 100 miles high, you need to then accellerate in a straight line away from the tower, out the window of the tower, so to speak, at about 17,500 miles/hour to get your forward momentum. Otherwise, if you jump out the window of the tower, you will discover that you are definitely NOT weightless, as you would similarly find if you jump out the window of a 200 story building. (Are there any 200 story buildings?)
In fact if you watch a shuttle launch, it is obvious that most of the energy spent is not gaining altitude, but is in gaining speed going around the earth.
Because of that speed, you have to lose all that energy upon re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The re-entry heating is just loosing all that energy that you accumulated at launch, by doing the opposite, i.e. slowing down so that you reach the runway at only about 200 miles/hour, or somesuch.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
So if you had a library that is obviously intended to play DVD's with no sinister purpose, and therefore decrypted the CSS, would you be safe?
Sony Playstation: 50 million units
Nintendo GameCube: 16 million (or 10-12 million depending on who you believe)
Microsoft Xbox: 8-9 million
Microsoft is not doing so well. Microsoft says sales of Xbox are on track. Yet what did Microsoft project they would sell? 9 million to 11 million. How many did they sell? 8 million, and they hope to sell 1 million more by June 30. Therefore Microsoft might possibly meet the low end of their projections.
If this was a terrorist act, then the terrorists only get any "benefit" out of it by it being known that it was a terrorist act.
Given that everyone is saying this was not a terrorist act, then the terrorists would have to proove that they were responsible. Oherwise they cause no terror. Once they proove responsibility they are likely to generate more anger than terror. Therefore, it is not likely a terrorist act, even if done by sabotage.
But I suppose in time, we will find out as this unfolds.
I suppose I should mention that another natural resource we have been blessed with in great abundance is our vast amount of agricultural chemicals, pesticides, and genetically engineered foods.
Combine this with our wonderful processing, packaging and marketing, and we are also the leading supplier of wonderful junk food in every conceivable taste pleasing form.
You still have the largest military-industrial complex on the planet, and the largest number of private military corporations. If the outsourcing strategy doesn't work, then you can just take it all back by force.
We also grow a significant portion of the world's food.
Yeah, if you don't abandon open source efforts in your various governments, then you'll starve. It'll be in the EULA for the food.
It should be no big surprise. As we keep pushing things out of the US we have less and less real value.
We, as a nation, actually build very little on our own shores.
[List of things deleted]
Don't be so negative. Look at the profitable things we are good at, which we are keeping...
Marketing
Management
Litigation
Buzzwords
TLA's
Entertainment
Intellectual property licensing
Patents
Creative Accounting Practices
Monopoly building and maintenance
Because of these strengths, I predict that the countries with strong economies that need some of these functions, are not good at them (or don't want to touch them), and don't have local talent in these areas will outsource these functions back to the US.
Of course the performance characteristics may be quite different to an SMP box
That may depend on a lot of factors. On a compute intensive, with very little I/O job, OpenMosix may do as well as SMP. The only real overhead is after a few seconds when the system realizes that a job should be migrated to a different box. If the compute intensive part of each process runs for perhaps minutes before the process terminates, then the cost of process migration may be minimal.
I think the folks who do CGI for movies have their own special-purpose distribution systems
I'm sure they do not use POV. I just use it as an example of a low I/O, compute intensive job that is easily split into many independant processes. The I/O consists of initially reading some text files. The compute part may last for a substantially long time. Again, the cost of migrating the process is small compared to the time that that process spent running on a different box.
I think that OpenMosix appeals to me because of the kind of compute jobs I am interested in doing. It fits well. I don't do massive compiles in C.
Does anyone else suspect that slashdot is completely populated by characters from the simpsons?
Not likely. There would be many copyright issues.
More likely is that simpsons characters are made to mimic characters from slashdot. This could be done with a very low chance of raising any legal issues.
Slashdot Mirror
if virtual pc will be suspended for the mac. are they more concerned about stopping adoption of os x, or more concerned about selling windows licenses to mac users?
Let's consider a hypothetical purchaser. He wants a Mac. But has to infrequently run 2 Windows programs. VPC is a real solution.
If Microsoft takes away Mac VPC, then that user must run Windows on a Dell instead of on a Mac. Microsoft does NOT lose a sale of Windows. They just sell the OEM Windows through Dell instead of Connectix. But Apple loses a sale, and the Mac is now a less attractive platform.
makes you wonder if virtual pc will be suspended for the mac.
are they more concerned about stopping adoption of os x, or more concerned about selling windows licenses to mac users?
Let me tell you the tail of another software product.
Visual FoxPro.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Before the dark times, before Windows 3.1.... there was a company named Fox Software. They made a database called FoxPro, for the Macintosh, in 1988 (or maybe it was 1989?).
There were few databases for the Mac. Those that were generally had high suckage.
FoxPro was dBASE compatible. Could run dBASE programs. But had a GUI! And ran on Mac. And was fast!
Soon, they had a DOS version. Later, a Windows version. (They also had a Unix version, but I'm not sure when that was.)
With FoxPro, you could write a database application and run it on DOS in text mode, Unix text mode, Macintosh, and Windows. The GUI measured everything in characters. Yes, it was weird, and had lots of oddities. But it solved real deployment problems.
Microsoft acquired Fox Software. The Windows version improves greatly. So does the Mac version.
Microsoft heavily modifies it, offering a radically improved GUI, and adds object oriented constructs to the ancient crufty xbase language. This is called Visual FoxPro. Released for Windows first. Mac users wait. And wait. And wait. Finally 1-1/2 years later, the VFP for Mac appears.
No more DOS version. No more Unix version. Just Windows and Mac.
But really, no more Mac either. Another Mac version is never released. This would offer users something that is not in Microsoft's interest. Choice. It is in Microsoft's interest to be sure that the databases on the Mac are all crap. And that any non-crap ones are not cross platform. (This latter one leaves developers the choice of being Mac only which is a serious business disadvantage, or bearing the cost of developing a seperate Mac version of any product.) Or that any non-crap databases are not sufficiently programmable as to be able to build an application with total control of the UI. (You could use 4D , Omnis, or FileMaker, but then it is obvious how your product is obviously developed.)
Back to reality. So could Microsoft intend to dump the Mac VPC? Doing so would only cost them the Windows sales. Loosing the Windows sales to Mac VPC customers probably isn't even a rounding error in the sales figures of Windows. But it would make the Mac a lot less attractive to customers who need to run ANY Windows software. Some customers might want a Mac, but need to run only 1 or 2 Windows programs, infrequently. VPC is a solution. Take away VPC, and those customers don't use Mac.
Looking at this another way. Taking away VPC doesn't lose Microsoft ANY sales of Windows licenses. The Mac users who MUST run a Windows program, will now NOT buy a Mac, but will still buy a Windows license (on a Dell). Microsoft still sells a copy of Windows. Apple loses a sale.
and a few hours rented time with an electron microscope to pull on the Palladium's keys, and suddenly MS is no longer the sole source or vendor of their Palladium platform
If each chip has a unique private key, then you've only learned one private key.
I imagine that each chip's unique private key is also digitally signed, with a certificate to proove that it is a genuine private key of a TCPA chip. (Otherwise, any idiot could just generate a key pair, and claim the private key is from a TCPA chip.)
So you obtain the key and certificate of the key's authenticity from inspection of the chip innards. So what? All you can do is emulate the one chip you inspected. You now have thousands of emulators all with identical "tcpa chips". The DRM folks just revoke anything signed with this key. We now all know that key such-and-so has been compromised and used in emulators. All new releases of Snow White will no longer play using that key. Actually, no software will trust the hardware integrity if that is the TCPA chip key.
So now you start all over. Do expensive electron microscopy again to compromise a new key. This is probably far more difficult for you to do than for them to revoke a key. Plus, what you are doing can be legislated to be illegal. Now anyone who owns an electron microscope might be very leary of letting just anyone use it.
M$ bought VPC because they got wind that Apple was working closely with them to make VPC the "redbox" under IBM's 970 chip.
Then maybe Apple will have to use Bochs instead. Gives Apple complete control over the end user experience instead of a partner developer.
Suppose Apple took this approach. Take the Bochs code, throw a couple full time engineers at it for six months. Could it be made into an end-user product?
>>Yeah, and we know that Microsoft would never sacrifice profits in order to put a competitor out of business.
>The only reason your comment was moderated "insightful" is because it's anti-Microsoft.
The reason it was modded as Insightful might be because it was Insightful. Could that possibly be the reason?
Let's not talk just about Microsoft. Let's talk about IBM in the 50's, 60's and 70's. It is well understood that this is classic monopoly behavior. Profits are less important than exclusivity and control. Profits follow later if you have control. You can set prices arbitrarily. The very definition of control.
They can't profit from a tiny handful of Mac guys buying a few copies of DOS. Sufficient demand doesn't exist to generate a profit.
This sounds good. But think about it. Connectix seems to think that a profitable Mac market exists. This is implied because they have sold a Mac version for many years. In fact, the Mac version was first, and was only on Mac for many years. The Windows VPC is a recent development. So are you seriously suggesting that the Mac VPC is not profitable?
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but it isn't even remotely applicable here.
Why not? Microsoft can buy Connectix. Suppose, hypothetically, they ax a profitable product line (the Mac VPC). They are losing profits that were being made. They are hurting a competitor (Apple). The idea: Mac users can no longer run Windows software -- possibly making the Mac WAY less attactive to some potential Mac customers. (Hey, I'm thinking about a Mac, but I need to run Windows version of XXXX and YYYY. Not much, but XXXX and YYYY are requirements. But I can get a Mac with VPC and meet my requirements.)
Is this not sacrificing profits to hurt a competitor? Tell me again how the original poster's comment is NOT insightful? Tell me how it is NOT applicable here? Plese explain?
Mac users buying Virtual PC buy a copy of Windows, too.
Nope. You can buy Virtual PC with DR. DOS for about $50. We bought our Virtual PC 3.0 that way.
Then just install all the Windows you want.
My purpose was for testing. I would create a several hundred megabyte hard disk image under VPC. Install, say Win 95. Configure to taste. Then burn the hard disk image to CD. Then repeat process, but use Win 95 OSR2. Then repeat with Win 98. Then with Win 98 SE. etc., etc., etc.
Now I've got an entire library of CD's with configured, installed OSes on them. (Not all of them are Microsoft OSes either.)
Need to test our product on a particular config of Win 95 OSR2? Just grab the CD, copy it to Mac hard disk. Run VPC. Test. I can have a "virgin" install of Win 95 OSR2 in about 4 minutes.
The other thing that is great is experimentation. I can play, tinker, reverse engineer, etc. to my heart's delight. With impunity. I can do things to the software that I would never consider doing on a real hardware PC. (Unless it was a spare "labrat" pc.) If I screw it up, I can have the "virgin" unmodified system back in 4 minutes. (Can't do that with a spare PC.)
Here's another thing. Get a, say, virgin install of Win ME. Install some program, like Kazaa. Shut down. Now, using Macintosh tools, mount and examine the hard disk image. Compare to the "virgin" image using a script in MPW. See what files were added / removed / altered. Even the registry. You have the original and altered state of these files. Boot back up in Virtual PC and do a regdump (complete textual dump of registry). Take the text dump of the "virgin" and "kazaa" registries and diff them to see what reg keys are added / removed / altered.
Is all this capability and freedom worth the measly price of selling a Windows license to a Mac user? And maybe even NOT selling a Windows license to a Mac user?
A .NET enabled BIOS can ensure that you see a fresh, non-stale advertisement each time you boot.
.NET enabled OS can ensure that you see the ad frequently.
A
Oh, I beg to diff.
The BIOS has many valuable purposes.
In short, the BIOS adds a lot of value to the computer. (Value for corporations, to the benefit of corporations.)
C'mon these BIOS programmers need to justify their existance. A BIOS maker can't just ship the same BIOS year after year without improvements. Just look at car companies. Each year there is a new model. What changed? The bumper. The hood ornament. Etc. Or as another example, just look at Microsoft. What changed this model year? The chrome. How things are organized. The value of this? Training revenue. OS Envy creates sales sizzle. What do you really expect a BIOS maker to do? Not start adding flashy useless features? It is just a natural outgrowth that once the product cannot be enhanced in very useful ways, they will concentrate on technical challenges like audio error messages, boot-time browsers, etc.
Just imagine that the boot logo is not only animated, but actually has downloaded advertising each time you boot up? Don't tell me there isn't value in this.
If the ad is seen each time you boot up, it encourages closed, smoke-filled, back-room meetings like this:
Phonyix: Okay, GillBates, we'll give you a 5% kickback on ad revenue if you make the computer crash.
GillBates: But I've already got that feature implemented.
Phonyix: Okay, we'll set up a schedule. If the computer crashes once per hour, your kickback is 5%. If the computer crashes 2 times per hour, then 5.28%. If more often, then we'll work out a graduated schedule.
GillBates: How about some innovative thinking. Suppose our software connects to your
C'mon guys. This is progress. Imagine back in the early days of computers, like the original 1981 IBM PC. Computers would never have provided the incredible economic opportunities that they do today. This is progress and innovation.
The article starts out mentioning terrorist threats. If this is the motivation to move data off site, then sealand does not seem all that safe. Couldn't an explosives laden raft that damaged a US Navy ship in Yemen also do some serious damage to Sealand?
Isn't Sealand's real novelty it's laws? Not it's true physical security.
Oh how wrong you are! TV is a disaster area
I agree with your sentiments, but I must also agree with the original poster's opinion that it is deeply well thought out engineering.
The problem they solved with the technology and limitations they had to produce something affordable was amazing. Especially using 1940'ish technology. (Vaccum tubes, expensive bulky transformers, huge metal chassis.) Didn't you ever take apart old TV's as a youngster back in the 60's? This would give you an appreciation of how much they did with how little.
Believe me, they were not thinking about computer monitors. They solved a problem using their technology (not ours), using amazing engineering. Bitch all you want about interlacing. It was a good idea that sovled a real problem. Reduce flicker by drawing the screen 60 times each second. But each frame is only half full. You only send the bandwidth of 30 complete frames in a second, but get the non-flicker of 60 Hz.
Do I agree with you that by today's standards it looks like a giant kludge? Yes.
Do I agree with your whole disgust of the football / tv-industry? Yes.
So in 50 years, will people look at our computers today in the same kind of disgust? Yes.
Hey mommy and daddy, what were computers like way back in the olden days when you were a kid when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
[....answer....]
Eeeewwwwwwww! They had segment registers! Booted up in "real" mode. Stupid short sighted limits like 32-bit filesystems, etc. And it's all financed, and the industry only moves forward based on who can force upgrades and lock-in on whom.
Without control, you can't force the broadcasters to pay you a fee, no matter how small it might seem.
If this player could play just any audio stream, then after the sale of the box, that is the end of any revenue they see. You don't think they will make any revenue if you listen to a Shoutcast stream? You don't think anyone sending such a stream is going to do anything but laugh out loud if Phillips asks them for money.
In fact, one of the economics basics about any monopoly is that control and market share are the most important thing. IBM figured this out by the mid 1950's. Control is more important than...
- Profit
- Legality
- Public opinion
- ...anything else
If you have control then the profits will follow. You can set prices arbitrarily. (The very definition of control.) Get slapped with a legal fine? Just pay it. You can gouge prices later to make it up.Another way to see this is... if you have control then your only purpose must be to turn the purchaser of the box into an ongoing revenue stream.
Next understand that $17B is not very much money. Considering that BP just spent [rferl.org] $6.7B on a oil company in Russia and has plans for more purchases.
Microsoft has $40-some Billion in cash that could be immediately spent on monopoly building efforts.
Imagine the US Govt. getting into a space race, not with the Chinese, but with Microsoft.
Or imagine, the Microsoft Space Elevator EULA. In order to migrate off this rock and colonize elsewhere, you agree to only use MS products on the colony, and pay the tax in the form of buying Microsoft stamps to be used on any software products developed or used.
I think the space elevator is a great idea for an anternate way in to low Earth orbit
Would it really get you to orbit?
In my armchair physics understanding, I would think it would get you to the right altitude, but that you would just fall back to earth again. 9.8 m/s^2, and all that nonsense.
Have you ever been in a tall building? Even on the top floor, surprise, unexpectedly, the earth's gravity is still pulling on you. It would be doing so no matter which floor of the elevator you stopped on. Even at the top, say 100 miles, high. You're firmly anchored to the floor at 9.8 m/s^2.
Being in orbit means there are two forces at work. (1) Forward momentum, sending you in a straight line away from the earth at a tangent. (2) The earth's gravity bending your straight line as it continually tries to keep you comming back to earth. You end up in an eliptical motion around the earth with an apogee and perigee.
Once you get to, say 100 miles high, you need to then accellerate in a straight line away from the tower, out the window of the tower, so to speak, at about 17,500 miles/hour to get your forward momentum. Otherwise, if you jump out the window of the tower, you will discover that you are definitely NOT weightless, as you would similarly find if you jump out the window of a 200 story building. (Are there any 200 story buildings?)
In fact if you watch a shuttle launch, it is obvious that most of the energy spent is not gaining altitude, but is in gaining speed going around the earth.
Because of that speed, you have to lose all that energy upon re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The re-entry heating is just loosing all that energy that you accumulated at launch, by doing the opposite, i.e. slowing down so that you reach the runway at only about 200 miles/hour, or somesuch.
So if you had a library that is obviously intended to play DVD's with no sinister purpose, and therefore decrypted the CSS, would you be safe?
Remember, if you comment on this from work you're stealing from your employer. I always take days off to read Slashdot.
Really, for shame. You know better than this.
You should be using up sick days to read Slashdot.
Xbox is the #3 system.
Sony Playstation: 50 million units
Nintendo GameCube: 16 million (or 10-12 million depending on who you believe)
Microsoft Xbox: 8-9 million
Microsoft is not doing so well. Microsoft says sales of Xbox are on track. Yet what did Microsoft project they would sell? 9 million to 11 million. How many did they sell? 8 million, and they hope to sell 1 million more by June 30. Therefore Microsoft might possibly meet the low end of their projections.
Sources...
CNet: PlayStation 2 shipments top 50 million
CNet: Microsoft says Xbox sales on track ("We expect to finish our fiscal year with just over 9 million units sold worldwide," Koch said.)
And finally, for the Microsoft shills that think Xbox will take the world by storm...
Suppliers dim Xbox sales picture
I just think we should be accurate about these things.
Excuse me, this is slashdot.
If this was a terrorist act, then the terrorists only get any "benefit" out of it by it being known that it was a terrorist act.
Given that everyone is saying this was not a terrorist act, then the terrorists would have to proove that they were responsible. Oherwise they cause no terror. Once they proove responsibility they are likely to generate more anger than terror. Therefore, it is not likely a terrorist act, even if done by sabotage.
But I suppose in time, we will find out as this unfolds.
30 year old tech has clearly failed twice.
In 17 years.
What if the next major accident isn't for another 17 years and uses newer technology?
Make your own pr0n. It's easy. It's fun. It fills up 100 GB pretty quick. Check for legality in your jurisdiction.
I suppose I should mention that another natural resource we have been blessed with in great abundance is our vast amount of agricultural chemicals, pesticides, and genetically engineered foods.
Combine this with our wonderful processing, packaging and marketing, and we are also the leading supplier of wonderful junk food in every conceivable taste pleasing form.
You still have the largest military-industrial complex on the planet, and the largest number of private military corporations. If the outsourcing strategy doesn't work, then you can just take it all back by force.
We also grow a significant portion of the world's food.
Yeah, if you don't abandon open source efforts in your various governments, then you'll starve. It'll be in the EULA for the food.
We, as a nation, actually build very little on our own shores.
[List of things deleted]
Don't be so negative. Look at the profitable things we are good at, which we are keeping...
- Marketing
- Management
- Litigation
- Buzzwords
- TLA's
- Entertainment
- Intellectual property licensing
- Patents
- Creative Accounting Practices
- Monopoly building and maintenance
Because of these strengths, I predict that the countries with strong economies that need some of these functions, are not good at them (or don't want to touch them), and don't have local talent in these areas will outsource these functions back to the US.Of course the performance characteristics may be quite different to an SMP box
That may depend on a lot of factors. On a compute intensive, with very little I/O job, OpenMosix may do as well as SMP. The only real overhead is after a few seconds when the system realizes that a job should be migrated to a different box. If the compute intensive part of each process runs for perhaps minutes before the process terminates, then the cost of process migration may be minimal.
I think the folks who do CGI for movies have their own special-purpose distribution systems
I'm sure they do not use POV. I just use it as an example of a low I/O, compute intensive job that is easily split into many independant processes. The I/O consists of initially reading some text files. The compute part may last for a substantially long time. Again, the cost of migrating the process is small compared to the time that that process spent running on a different box.
I think that OpenMosix appeals to me because of the kind of compute jobs I am interested in doing. It fits well. I don't do massive compiles in C.
Does anyone else suspect that slashdot is completely populated by characters from the simpsons?
Not likely. There would be many copyright issues.
More likely is that simpsons characters are made to mimic characters from slashdot. This could be done with a very low chance of raising any legal issues.