First Loki is mentioned in the article, in a way that seems to imply that they would be more successful today thanks to the larger installed base (which sounds plausable). That said, it made me think of something. What about Aspyr? They seem to specialize in porting Windows games to the Mac. If they are doing that (which would probably require moving the games to OpenGL and OpenAL if they don't use 'em already), then shouldn't it be a quick walk from there to Linux? Seems like as long as you are moving platforms, the little extra effort for the increased market share you can sell to seems like a good idea.
Second is Tux Racer. Why do these articles always mention Tux Racer. It was cute that it existed 5 years ago, but the last time I tried it (a year to so ago) it still seemed amaturish (not bad, just simple and not as polished as a "real" game). It just doesn't seem like it should be an example that is trotted out every time one of these articles comes out.
Too bad we can't just get more people to use OpenGL and OpenAL/SDL/whatever in the first place so things no NEED full ports to be sellable on Linux/BSD/OS X/whatever. If MS were to somehow lose 20%+ market share quickly, the scramble to move these Windows only programs to other OSes would be fun to watch.
Last but not least... why do I have to pay so much? I moved from PC to Mac and would have to rebuy all my games. The data files are where most of your money is tied up. Write portable, and sell one box with one DVD that works on Win/Lin/Mac. Or just sell a Windows version and when the Linux/Mac version are ready make the files freely downloadable so anyone with a Windows copy run under Linux/Mac.
If (seemingly) every big console game can come out on all three consoles within a year (usually at the same time), then surely you can launch a computer game that runs on the big 3 OSes (Win, Lin, Mac) without 2+ year porting times. The difference between a Mac and a Linux box are MUCH MUCH SMALLER than between a Cube and a PS2.
See, that's what I thought happened at first. I assumed it was something like one had an X-Ray detector while the other had a mass-spectrometer or something (I would think NASA could tell the difference between a drill and a spectroscope). It was nothing of the sort, they got the calibration files mixed up between the rovers (technically the rovers mixed up between the calibration files, but it's the same end result).
This isn't journalism, this is headline mongering. Especially throwing in that metric/imperal thing. This would be journalism if it was "NASA discovers error in rover calibrations, corrects data". Since they have all the raw data they just stick it back through the computer and it's like it never happened.
Instead they try to make the public think NASA screwed up big again, like where one rover was supposed to have a camera and the other some kind of gas meter and they swapped 'em.
You can argue about whether there is bias in the media (and whether it's liberal or conservative), but the BIGGEST problem is crap like this. Why report the good stuff ("US troops build new school in Iraq despite RPG fire") when you can report just the bad ("US troops attached by RPG fire"). The former spokesman (he was temporary, can't remember name or title) for the Bush administration recently said that this was what he thought was wrong with the media in this country first and foremost, and I agree. I just wish whoever submitted this to/. had found a less sensationalistic source to link to rather than promoting this kind of crap.
As far as I know (and I have basically no knowledge here) there are no cases on this. If there are cases, they are probably quite old. That said, if a phone company (let us assume SWB) just started blocking people from calling random number (or Sprint PCS/Cingular/NexTel stores to be more like the issue at hand) I think it would be clear that unless they could make an argument it protected the consumer (i.e. those three companies were know fraud schemes, which they aren't despite what you may think of their prices/service;), they would get in BIG trouble. While this may not technically be censorship (I believe it's not "censorship" unless the Government is doing it), it's scummy (as others have pointed out) and the courts will end up intervening on the public's behalf (whether that is due to a Vonage lawsuit, a class action case, or a government probe started by some agency).
Cute trick guys. Now pay up for messing with your customers service. Let's not forget that phone companies block numbers because someone requested it, not because it messes with their business. If person A can't call person B that's because person A had the number blocked from that phone, person B had the number blocked from that phone, or a court ordered it so due to somee legal preceding (say a restraining order). That would be like someone calling up AOL and saying "Make it so my computer can't talk to Yahoo's computers anymore.", not AOL just saying "Sorry, Yahoo is off limits for (pathetic reasons X and Y)." as the ISP in this case is doing.
PS: Not only that, they are (among other things) intefering with interstate commerce, breaching contract (I'd imagine), and any decent lawyer could probably think up about 20 more.
Yes, it could. But the PS1 "pulled a PS1", and the PS2 was huge and managed to avoid being dethroned by the X-Box and the GC (by a HUGE margin). I'm just saying the safe bet is that, at least for the first few months, the PS3 will be hot and I don't think that simply launching the X-Box2 and Halo 3 at the same time will steal all that thunder.
They can go ahead and prove me wrong, I just think the odds are in my favor (but not by an overwhelming margin).
Um... no. The difference between my example and yours is this. My example assumes that the X-Box 2 is out there but not huge, and so they pull this stunt to try to undermine Sony's launch which would otherwise (and I say even if MS does this) huge.
YOUR example is from a the N64 which launched months after the PS and Saturn and by then the PS was already a very big story, Nintendo had already had their thunder stolen. If the N64 was launched at about the same time as the PlayStation, your example would hold more water.
A better example would be Nintendo launching the DS when it did to try to undermine the PSP (I doubt that was why, but that would be a better example).
Now I'm not saying that the PS3 will be the best, it could bomb. I was only talking about the size of the launch hype and press attention, not the eventual success of the console.
And, for reference, Nintendo DID launch with only one game (to a large degree) for months (and months).
I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole generation, just the launch hype. Even though the console could end up bombing (doubt it), there will still be TONS of hype and interest at launch no matter what MS tries to do to undermine it. Short of something like giving away X-Boxes for 2 cerial boxtops or something, Sony's hype will be huge.
The PlayStation was the biggest console of the last generation. The PlayStation 2 is the biggest console of this generation. Short of giving away XBox 2s, MS is not going to undermine the PS3 launch unless Sony does something spectacularly stupid (like launch with only one game: Tetris and not have any others available for 6+ months), which isn't going to happen.
Cute tactic, won't work. "PlayStation" is becomming the new "Nintendo", that is... the word people with no clue use as a generic for "video game".
Well, here is how things are for me. My family uses AOL (and I can't get them off it) so they are stuck. I wanted to use Firefox (I gave it a try) and while it was nice, the font rendering on my Windows box paled in comparison to the job IE did (this was on a laptop with a 15" display that had ~102ppi, well above the average ~72, and I had fonts and such turned up one notch). It just wasn't an option to use it every day (I last tried it after the 1.0 release). Now I've gone to a Mac after my old laptop got too slow for me. I have Firefox installed (incase I decide that I need to use it because of some Safari problem, or for webpage authoring), but I've found Safari meets my needs just fine (love Tabs which I knew from using FireFox betas on my Linux box, LOVE LOVE LOVE the "Open in tabs" option for bookmarks on the bookmark bar).
Before I couldn't go FF, now I have no need. That said, I have seen neighbors go to FF from IE after someone (kid they got to help them with spyware, or an adult child, or someone else) suggested it and they have to problem with it. They don't seem to see a difference, which may be part of the problem. Since both browsers take you too the same Internet, there will be a number (and not an insignificant number) who see "nothing different" and so they stay with IE. And now that IE has popup blocking (from SP2), one of the biggest complaints people had is gone.
But either way, FF is a nice browser and even if I don't use it I'm glad it's out there (another option, more competition, etc). Also I'm suprised that adoption was so fast in the first place. I think we are out of "try this new FF browser" and into "FF is better, look into it sometime". People will still switch, but how long could we really have held up that high pace? In about 6 months FF got almost 6% of the market from 2% or so. That is AMAZING for a product that isn't forced on people (IE updates).
Yeah, I know Sid Meier made that too. But as far as I'm aware the official title of the origional is "Pirates!" while the official title of the new one is "Sid Meier's Pirates!". Confusing, but whatever.
Yes the game is 3D. I'm not sure how much new there is or if it's more of a remake, but it's been getting rave reviews and I remember liking the origional (I didn't play it much, or understand it much as I was too young). But like I said, if it doesn't get ported, that's OK I'll play it on a console or on one of the PCs the rest of my family owns. I went Mac for "work", I barely played PC games before the switch. So any games I find are a bonus.
I meant the brand new "Sid Meier's Pirates!" that just came out on the PC. But any of my older PC games that if I wanted to play (doubtful) would run fine in an emulator (like VirtualPC or SCUMMvm or somesuch).
The classic Mac OS (v6 or v7) was the first computer that I ever used that much. I was 8-10 years old and it was that or DOS (which my parents could barely use). So when you compare those, Classic was a great choice WAY ahead of it's competition.
But as I said as I learned more the want to configure and mess with things brought me to Windows (and later to Linux).
As for Linux, I agree. I love the OS and it's fun, but I wanted something with that UNIXy goodness that "just worked". I don't mind searching for and compiling drivers and special software for my hobby computer, but for my daily school work computer? Not these days. I've got better ways to spend that time. OS X had the best of both worlds (and then some).
I don't think it would be wise for Apple to do. That said, I have one issue with your post that I'll mention.
OS X could run on the wider variety of PC hardware without too much trouble (starting to include every odd little thing would be a problem to a degree). That said Apple could go x86 (say to AMD's Hammers) and lock down the OS and such so that it only runs on Apple motherboards. Apple would stay a "little" computer company, but they would be using x86s. They could change things in every update that would make all non-Apple hardware die. So while it would work, you couldn't just buy a motherboard from your local computer store and run OS X on it. Basically a trusted computing scheme. I'd see no problem with that.
But OS X being the next Windows that you just buy at a store and will run on anything you assemble? Pipe dream. If they did do it, it wouldn't be OS X anymore because it wouldn't run quite as well.
Games are one of the reason I've switched to the Mac, in an odd way.
I used to play tons of PC games, but recently there have been very few that I have been interested in. I want to play Pirates!, HL2, and Doom 3. That's basically it. Pirates! will get ported (I'm guessing, but it's not that important), Doom 3 has gone gold (comes out the 15th of next month, I think), and HL2... well I'll play that on my sister's PC.
Consoles provide me with about all the gaming I want. If it's a good enough game, it will get ported (and I don't mind the extra time it will take to get to the Mac). Very few games remain PC only forever.
For most people, games are not a good reason to cling to PCs, in my expiriance. And that's not counting people like my mom, who only play web games (like PopCap's) anyway.
I switched. There are about 10-15 blog style entries on the page mentioned in my sig about it. Here is a short version of why:
Used to like Apple, moved to PC for customizability/etc (in mid 90s). Never considered moving back because the more I learned, the more obviously out of date the Mac OS was. Then I learned Linux and fell in love with Unix. Add to that the hate and distrust I've gained in MS and I was ready to jump ship (and I knew it wouldn't be too hard for me, unlike some people). Linux didn't seem "there", I wanted something more mainstream. When OS X came around (and I got to try it on my brother's PB) I really liked it, and started following it. I got an iPod, which did serve to remind me of Apple's quality. Then when my current computer (a Dell laptop that served me well for 4+ years) became too slow for my needs I waited until new PowerBooks were announced and I bought one. The whole (longer) story is in the site linked to in my sig.
So as for "the halo effect", I'm not so sure. It might happen for some people. I used to love Apple so I was really just finding them again. And even without the iPod I would have switched because of OS X. I have three observations on all of this. First is that iTunes really showed me how nice Apple software was these days (iTunes on Windows was the first Apple program I'd used since leaving my old LC II in about
95). Second was if OS X was available on a PC (as some want it, and as some other companies have been asking Apple) I doubt I would have switched (why switch processor architectures when you don't have to?). And third, I had been wanting a Mac to try OS X on for the last few years, but even used Macs were expensive (for what you got). Had the Mini been available 2 years go (the equivelent kind of computer, at that price point, not neccessisarily that size) I would have bought one as fast as I could and I may have switched earlier.
I'm not the "typical" switcher (someone relativly new to computers and raised on Wintel that went to Apple) since I'm a power user (used the OS 7 back in the day, Linux, most flavors of Windows, etc); but I switched and I am VERY happy with my new little Mac. Next step: evangilizing when people ask me about what to buy for their first computer!
I see no reason that it shouldn't be possible. Macs can do this. You boot them while holding "F" or "D" or "Command-F" or "Command-D" or something. They sit there and act like a firewire disk. I think you can even access the CD drive in them.
As for the PC side, I don't know. It's obviously possible, but I haven't heard of it. The Tinkerer in me says make a switch that disconnects the HD from the computer and connects it to a IDE->Firewire adaptor you hide in the case. Switch in one position it's a normal computer. Switch in the other it's a firewire disk.
While this is nice and all, I think we should be working on BioDesiel more. It would be more profitable to convert soybeans and soybean oil into Desiel fuel than to try to extract that from agg. waste. While recycling is good and all, I would argue that at this point the environment would benefit more from getting large numbers of people over to BioDesiel than from sqeezing some extra oil out of waste.
BioDesiel is the fuel of the (achievable) future, IMHO. Untill we can get Fuel Cells at reasonable prices or batteries get much better power density (or portable nuclear reactors are invented and safe) then getting peopole over to BioDesiel (which conventional Desiel engines can be easily modified to handle) is the solution.
Plus, the exhaust smells like french fries so McDonald's should be pushing this because it will increase demand for their product. McDonald's: Bringing you the green future through fast food cravings;)
I agree. Google's effort is only "dominated by the English language and American culture" because Google is a US company which, because it is based and run in the US is almost certainly "dominated by the English language and American culture".
They should LIKE this. This gives people all over the world in towns big and small access to books that they might otherwise never get to see for free (they'd have to buy the book). Google's effort will probably spawn others and that is where the French language/culture books (as well as those of other countries) come in.
Google tried to do something nice and pure, and they bitched. This is nothing but America bashing, pure and simple.
Besides, if Googlee did French books first, the Spanish would complain (as well as many Americans). So unless they did every language/culture at the start it would be "dominated by blah blah blah". And what company (even one as nice as Google) would undertake a program that big in the first place?
Nothing to see here but anti-US venom, move along.
OK, 7 processors * 20 Watts each = 140 Watts. Isn't that about the thermal envelope of a P4? Don't the top of the line P4EEs make 165 Watts?
That said, an interesting use of old CPUs. I wouldn't think that they would be hot enough, but I guess it makes sense. I heard that when the Intel guys finished designing the origional Pentium, someone gave the head designer a hotplate as a gift because the hotplate had the same thermal dissapation (W/cm^2) as the Pentium.
That said, the hack would have been more impressive if the processors were running Seti@Home at the time. But then it would be hard to get them all right next to eachother like that.
True. But every food manufacturer could raise their prices 1 cent. That wouldn't make much of a difference to anyone.
But for the consumer, prices would drop because stores wouldn't need to keep a bunch of baggers and checkout people around. That's lower overhead, so they wouldn't need their prices as high for the same proffit. The stores would be willing to pay that extra cent (or five) from every food manufacturer to be able to get the RFID product so they could reap the benefit of not needing all those personel.
With an RFID chip in each item, you just pass the basket under a scanner, and your total would show up. No hiding items at all (I agree that absue would be too easy with the system in the article). You pay and walk out the door.
The other problem with the system is bagging. When do things get bagged? Do you just dump everything lose in the back of your car, or do you bag as you shop?
First of all, you could up the graphics. With the number of polygons that the next-gen consoles (PS3, XBox2, Revololution) should be able to support, it could look BEATIFUL. Second, you could put in four player support, which would really be great. And best of all with the dual analog sticks on most controllers you could controll the characters perfectly (shoot/move in 360 directions, not 8).
These are the first steps. It's quite cool. I actually saw this about a week ago somewhere, but at that time the person could just get crud on the screen (just stuff to prove that it was working) and wasn't an actual game yet.
Still this is very cool. When someone figures out how to get thing on through the wireless (since the DS is designed to be able to boot stuff that way) the scene will probably explode.
Enterprise is one of the only Sci-Fi shows on TV that you don't need cable to watch. That said, I see one major problem with the show (which, by the way, I like quite a bit): UPN
What is ON UPN? Can you name ANYTHING besides Enterprise? I never watch the channel. It is full of shows no-one has ever heard of. If it wasn't for Enterprise it wouldn't matter to me if the channel disappeared from the face of the Earth. Advertising is only as effective as the people who watch it. You can advertize 24/7, but if you only advertise to the people who watch UPN, the rest of the world doesn't know you exist.
I wouldn't have known Enterprise existed if I hadn't read about it being created on Slashdot. I think if they could get on another network... a "REAL" network like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or even the WB they could do much better. Maybe they could get moved to the SciFi channel (not unlike how Law and Order: SVU and other shows air new on one network (say NBC) and the same new episode on another network later that day/week (USA in this case). Maybe they could go to USA. Or even (the bottom of the bucket that is) SpikeTV.
I think that is one of the biggest problems facing Enterprise. And when Enterprise fails, you can guess how easy it would be to get another Star Trek show on any network. I only get UPN because of cable/satellite, I can't pick it up otherwise (WAY too weak); and even then it doesn't look that good (slight ghosting, for example).
If they could only get on a more popular network, I think the popularity of the show would go up tremendosly as people found out it existed and could watch it more easily. I really hope the series survives. I like it quite a bit, and I think it is doing better now that DS9 did at the start (story-wise).
I'm a republican and I tend to avoid the politics section as I know I am in the minority here. That said, I would really like to know what Democrats think of this.
As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.
I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view.
But this post isn't about why I think he is bad, or that I think he is bad (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over;). What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on/. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Is there anything about him that worries you? Are there any specific traits that you think will make him do a better job than Terry McCauluf (probably spelled wrong)? The only thing I see good about him is that he is good at fundraising and organizing the far left (but I really don't know much about the guy).
So what do you Dems think of this decision? Good, bad, indifferent, and why?
PS: He wasn't the Clinton's pick, from what I understand. I bet they are NOT happy about this. But that's another discussion entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
First Loki is mentioned in the article, in a way that seems to imply that they would be more successful today thanks to the larger installed base (which sounds plausable). That said, it made me think of something. What about Aspyr? They seem to specialize in porting Windows games to the Mac. If they are doing that (which would probably require moving the games to OpenGL and OpenAL if they don't use 'em already), then shouldn't it be a quick walk from there to Linux? Seems like as long as you are moving platforms, the little extra effort for the increased market share you can sell to seems like a good idea.
Second is Tux Racer. Why do these articles always mention Tux Racer. It was cute that it existed 5 years ago, but the last time I tried it (a year to so ago) it still seemed amaturish (not bad, just simple and not as polished as a "real" game). It just doesn't seem like it should be an example that is trotted out every time one of these articles comes out.
Too bad we can't just get more people to use OpenGL and OpenAL/SDL/whatever in the first place so things no NEED full ports to be sellable on Linux/BSD/OS X/whatever. If MS were to somehow lose 20%+ market share quickly, the scramble to move these Windows only programs to other OSes would be fun to watch.
Last but not least... why do I have to pay so much? I moved from PC to Mac and would have to rebuy all my games. The data files are where most of your money is tied up. Write portable, and sell one box with one DVD that works on Win/Lin/Mac. Or just sell a Windows version and when the Linux/Mac version are ready make the files freely downloadable so anyone with a Windows copy run under Linux/Mac.
If (seemingly) every big console game can come out on all three consoles within a year (usually at the same time), then surely you can launch a computer game that runs on the big 3 OSes (Win, Lin, Mac) without 2+ year porting times. The difference between a Mac and a Linux box are MUCH MUCH SMALLER than between a Cube and a PS2.
See, that's what I thought happened at first. I assumed it was something like one had an X-Ray detector while the other had a mass-spectrometer or something (I would think NASA could tell the difference between a drill and a spectroscope). It was nothing of the sort, they got the calibration files mixed up between the rovers (technically the rovers mixed up between the calibration files, but it's the same end result).
This isn't journalism, this is headline mongering. Especially throwing in that metric/imperal thing. This would be journalism if it was "NASA discovers error in rover calibrations, corrects data". Since they have all the raw data they just stick it back through the computer and it's like it never happened.
Instead they try to make the public think NASA screwed up big again, like where one rover was supposed to have a camera and the other some kind of gas meter and they swapped 'em.
You can argue about whether there is bias in the media (and whether it's liberal or conservative), but the BIGGEST problem is crap like this. Why report the good stuff ("US troops build new school in Iraq despite RPG fire") when you can report just the bad ("US troops attached by RPG fire"). The former spokesman (he was temporary, can't remember name or title) for the Bush administration recently said that this was what he thought was wrong with the media in this country first and foremost, and I agree. I just wish whoever submitted this to /. had found a less sensationalistic source to link to rather than promoting this kind of crap.
Cute trick guys. Now pay up for messing with your customers service. Let's not forget that phone companies block numbers because someone requested it, not because it messes with their business. If person A can't call person B that's because person A had the number blocked from that phone, person B had the number blocked from that phone, or a court ordered it so due to somee legal preceding (say a restraining order). That would be like someone calling up AOL and saying "Make it so my computer can't talk to Yahoo's computers anymore.", not AOL just saying "Sorry, Yahoo is off limits for (pathetic reasons X and Y)." as the ISP in this case is doing.
PS: Not only that, they are (among other things) intefering with interstate commerce, breaching contract (I'd imagine), and any decent lawyer could probably think up about 20 more.
They can go ahead and prove me wrong, I just think the odds are in my favor (but not by an overwhelming margin).
YOUR example is from a the N64 which launched months after the PS and Saturn and by then the PS was already a very big story, Nintendo had already had their thunder stolen. If the N64 was launched at about the same time as the PlayStation, your example would hold more water.
A better example would be Nintendo launching the DS when it did to try to undermine the PSP (I doubt that was why, but that would be a better example).
Now I'm not saying that the PS3 will be the best, it could bomb. I was only talking about the size of the launch hype and press attention, not the eventual success of the console.
And, for reference, Nintendo DID launch with only one game (to a large degree) for months (and months).
I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole generation, just the launch hype. Even though the console could end up bombing (doubt it), there will still be TONS of hype and interest at launch no matter what MS tries to do to undermine it. Short of something like giving away X-Boxes for 2 cerial boxtops or something, Sony's hype will be huge.
Cute tactic, won't work. "PlayStation" is becomming the new "Nintendo", that is... the word people with no clue use as a generic for "video game".
Before I couldn't go FF, now I have no need. That said, I have seen neighbors go to FF from IE after someone (kid they got to help them with spyware, or an adult child, or someone else) suggested it and they have to problem with it. They don't seem to see a difference, which may be part of the problem. Since both browsers take you too the same Internet, there will be a number (and not an insignificant number) who see "nothing different" and so they stay with IE. And now that IE has popup blocking (from SP2), one of the biggest complaints people had is gone.
But either way, FF is a nice browser and even if I don't use it I'm glad it's out there (another option, more competition, etc). Also I'm suprised that adoption was so fast in the first place. I think we are out of "try this new FF browser" and into "FF is better, look into it sometime". People will still switch, but how long could we really have held up that high pace? In about 6 months FF got almost 6% of the market from 2% or so. That is AMAZING for a product that isn't forced on people (IE updates).
Yes the game is 3D. I'm not sure how much new there is or if it's more of a remake, but it's been getting rave reviews and I remember liking the origional (I didn't play it much, or understand it much as I was too young). But like I said, if it doesn't get ported, that's OK I'll play it on a console or on one of the PCs the rest of my family owns. I went Mac for "work", I barely played PC games before the switch. So any games I find are a bonus.
I meant the brand new "Sid Meier's Pirates!" that just came out on the PC. But any of my older PC games that if I wanted to play (doubtful) would run fine in an emulator (like VirtualPC or SCUMMvm or somesuch).
But as I said as I learned more the want to configure and mess with things brought me to Windows (and later to Linux).
As for Linux, I agree. I love the OS and it's fun, but I wanted something with that UNIXy goodness that "just worked". I don't mind searching for and compiling drivers and special software for my hobby computer, but for my daily school work computer? Not these days. I've got better ways to spend that time. OS X had the best of both worlds (and then some).
OS X could run on the wider variety of PC hardware without too much trouble (starting to include every odd little thing would be a problem to a degree). That said Apple could go x86 (say to AMD's Hammers) and lock down the OS and such so that it only runs on Apple motherboards. Apple would stay a "little" computer company, but they would be using x86s. They could change things in every update that would make all non-Apple hardware die. So while it would work, you couldn't just buy a motherboard from your local computer store and run OS X on it. Basically a trusted computing scheme. I'd see no problem with that.
But OS X being the next Windows that you just buy at a store and will run on anything you assemble? Pipe dream. If they did do it, it wouldn't be OS X anymore because it wouldn't run quite as well.
I used to play tons of PC games, but recently there have been very few that I have been interested in. I want to play Pirates!, HL2, and Doom 3. That's basically it. Pirates! will get ported (I'm guessing, but it's not that important), Doom 3 has gone gold (comes out the 15th of next month, I think), and HL2... well I'll play that on my sister's PC.
Consoles provide me with about all the gaming I want. If it's a good enough game, it will get ported (and I don't mind the extra time it will take to get to the Mac). Very few games remain PC only forever.
For most people, games are not a good reason to cling to PCs, in my expiriance. And that's not counting people like my mom, who only play web games (like PopCap's) anyway.
Used to like Apple, moved to PC for customizability/etc (in mid 90s). Never considered moving back because the more I learned, the more obviously out of date the Mac OS was. Then I learned Linux and fell in love with Unix. Add to that the hate and distrust I've gained in MS and I was ready to jump ship (and I knew it wouldn't be too hard for me, unlike some people). Linux didn't seem "there", I wanted something more mainstream. When OS X came around (and I got to try it on my brother's PB) I really liked it, and started following it. I got an iPod, which did serve to remind me of Apple's quality. Then when my current computer (a Dell laptop that served me well for 4+ years) became too slow for my needs I waited until new PowerBooks were announced and I bought one. The whole (longer) story is in the site linked to in my sig.
So as for "the halo effect", I'm not so sure. It might happen for some people. I used to love Apple so I was really just finding them again. And even without the iPod I would have switched because of OS X. I have three observations on all of this. First is that iTunes really showed me how nice Apple software was these days (iTunes on Windows was the first Apple program I'd used since leaving my old LC II in about 95). Second was if OS X was available on a PC (as some want it, and as some other companies have been asking Apple) I doubt I would have switched (why switch processor architectures when you don't have to?). And third, I had been wanting a Mac to try OS X on for the last few years, but even used Macs were expensive (for what you got). Had the Mini been available 2 years go (the equivelent kind of computer, at that price point, not neccessisarily that size) I would have bought one as fast as I could and I may have switched earlier.
I'm not the "typical" switcher (someone relativly new to computers and raised on Wintel that went to Apple) since I'm a power user (used the OS 7 back in the day, Linux, most flavors of Windows, etc); but I switched and I am VERY happy with my new little Mac. Next step: evangilizing when people ask me about what to buy for their first computer!
As for the PC side, I don't know. It's obviously possible, but I haven't heard of it. The Tinkerer in me says make a switch that disconnects the HD from the computer and connects it to a IDE->Firewire adaptor you hide in the case. Switch in one position it's a normal computer. Switch in the other it's a firewire disk.
Good luck.
BioDesiel is the fuel of the (achievable) future, IMHO. Untill we can get Fuel Cells at reasonable prices or batteries get much better power density (or portable nuclear reactors are invented and safe) then getting peopole over to BioDesiel (which conventional Desiel engines can be easily modified to handle) is the solution.
Plus, the exhaust smells like french fries so McDonald's should be pushing this because it will increase demand for their product. McDonald's: Bringing you the green future through fast food cravings ;)
They should LIKE this. This gives people all over the world in towns big and small access to books that they might otherwise never get to see for free (they'd have to buy the book). Google's effort will probably spawn others and that is where the French language/culture books (as well as those of other countries) come in.
Google tried to do something nice and pure, and they bitched. This is nothing but America bashing, pure and simple.
Besides, if Googlee did French books first, the Spanish would complain (as well as many Americans). So unless they did every language/culture at the start it would be "dominated by blah blah blah". And what company (even one as nice as Google) would undertake a program that big in the first place?
Nothing to see here but anti-US venom, move along.
That said, an interesting use of old CPUs. I wouldn't think that they would be hot enough, but I guess it makes sense. I heard that when the Intel guys finished designing the origional Pentium, someone gave the head designer a hotplate as a gift because the hotplate had the same thermal dissapation (W/cm^2) as the Pentium.
That said, the hack would have been more impressive if the processors were running Seti@Home at the time. But then it would be hard to get them all right next to eachother like that.
But for the consumer, prices would drop because stores wouldn't need to keep a bunch of baggers and checkout people around. That's lower overhead, so they wouldn't need their prices as high for the same proffit. The stores would be willing to pay that extra cent (or five) from every food manufacturer to be able to get the RFID product so they could reap the benefit of not needing all those personel.
It should work out.
With an RFID chip in each item, you just pass the basket under a scanner, and your total would show up. No hiding items at all (I agree that absue would be too easy with the system in the article). You pay and walk out the door.
The other problem with the system is bagging. When do things get bagged? Do you just dump everything lose in the back of your car, or do you bag as you shop?
First of all, you could up the graphics. With the number of polygons that the next-gen consoles (PS3, XBox2, Revololution) should be able to support, it could look BEATIFUL. Second, you could put in four player support, which would really be great. And best of all with the dual analog sticks on most controllers you could controll the characters perfectly (shoot/move in 360 directions, not 8).
BIG money. BIG prizes. I LOVE IT!
Pythons!
*ducks*
Still this is very cool. When someone figures out how to get thing on through the wireless (since the DS is designed to be able to boot stuff that way) the scene will probably explode.
What is ON UPN? Can you name ANYTHING besides Enterprise? I never watch the channel. It is full of shows no-one has ever heard of. If it wasn't for Enterprise it wouldn't matter to me if the channel disappeared from the face of the Earth. Advertising is only as effective as the people who watch it. You can advertize 24/7, but if you only advertise to the people who watch UPN, the rest of the world doesn't know you exist.
I wouldn't have known Enterprise existed if I hadn't read about it being created on Slashdot. I think if they could get on another network... a "REAL" network like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or even the WB they could do much better. Maybe they could get moved to the SciFi channel (not unlike how Law and Order: SVU and other shows air new on one network (say NBC) and the same new episode on another network later that day/week (USA in this case). Maybe they could go to USA. Or even (the bottom of the bucket that is) SpikeTV.
I think that is one of the biggest problems facing Enterprise. And when Enterprise fails, you can guess how easy it would be to get another Star Trek show on any network. I only get UPN because of cable/satellite, I can't pick it up otherwise (WAY too weak); and even then it doesn't look that good (slight ghosting, for example).
If they could only get on a more popular network, I think the popularity of the show would go up tremendosly as people found out it existed and could watch it more easily. I really hope the series survives. I like it quite a bit, and I think it is doing better now that DS9 did at the start (story-wise).
Good luck, NCC-1701(whatever).
As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.
I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view.
But this post isn't about why I think he is bad, or that I think he is bad (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over ;). What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Is there anything about him that worries you? Are there any specific traits that you think will make him do a better job than Terry McCauluf (probably spelled wrong)? The only thing I see good about him is that he is good at fundraising and organizing the far left (but I really don't know much about the guy).
So what do you Dems think of this decision? Good, bad, indifferent, and why?
PS: He wasn't the Clinton's pick, from what I understand. I bet they are NOT happy about this. But that's another discussion entirely.