There is a huge market segment that either a) doesn't want a PC or b) doesn't mind a PC but doesn't want one in every room. Look at how many (wired) phones there are in the world. Replace 50% of them with these boxes. Is that market big enough?
Alternatively, look at the mobile phone market, and how big that is - the devices are simple and appeal to non-techies these days. In the UK we're almost at saturation point (I think we're expected to hit 50% of the population over the next few years, not bad considering most toddlers don't have mobile phones, and I suspect few OAP's do percentagewise)
Computers actually only have a limited market share, so building a computer that looks like something else is not a bad idea, there are only so many people willing to keep upgrading their CPU's after all!
Since when does the word "Internet" have any reference to users, much less require "individuals"? (what's an individual anyway?) Internet is just that - an inter-network network. That is, it is a network that connects subnetworks. This term was chosen because the Internet connects thousands of organizations and their networks together. The Internet 2 also connects many organizations' networks, just not as many (and more selective) as Internet 1.
Oh dear. You disagree with me, so I'm stupid. Get out of bed the wrong side?
Now to address your points:
internet (small i) is taken to mean a network that connects other networks, which fits your argument.
Internet (small I) is taken to mean THE Internet, which is a network that is publically available and (amongst other purposes) transfers mail, files and information. As such, Internet-2 is a direct referral to the current Internet (big I) and that IS available to individuals (an individual is exactly what it says it is, look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what an individual is). So yes, within the currently understood context, "Internet" does have reference to being available to individuals.
Your argument would carry more weight if 1) you didn't insult people as part of it and 2) you posted from an account rather than anonymously
Extremely low isn't the same as zero though, and BeOS on intel hasn't been around as long as Linux I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming Intel will be using RedHat (they have an investment there don't they?) then they too have a company to back up the software quality. Unfortunately BeOS is probably not going to set the world alight - this is not a reflection on it's qualities, but probably true.
It's not really a consumer win for Linux, but it is an important possible foothold. I'll explain:
Two of the most common arguments against Linux are 1) it has no major applications for it, and 2) it is not used anywhere 'seriously'
If the Intel box takes off, this is a fairly important embedded use (if you don't think embedded usage is important, Motorola makes vast profits from embedded sales, and whilst it may not be now [I haven't checked for a few years], it was bigger than Intel, despite not controlling the CPU market). It also establishes Linux as a consumer OS, and after all, that is what makes Windows 9x so successful. Plenty of people don't really know the ins and outs of Windows, but they know they have it, they know they use it. They buy software and hardware because it's "Windows compatible". If your mum or dad is happy with their "Lintel" box, maybe they will buy a computer that "is compatible" with it if they want to upgrade...
If the devices take off big time then applications could follow: if everyone has ADSL to their home, shared between different devices (the PC, the Intel box etc.) and the device is cheap enough, why not have several of them, the kitchen, the bedroom, etc. People watch TV in bed, why not be able to browse in bed? Now, there are millions of these, maybe 25% of homes have them, maybe more. Is this a market for applications? Quite possibly. End of argument 1 above
Alot will depend on how it's packaged up I guess. You have to remember there are plenty of people who don't actually want a PC, but want to browse and do a little email. Look at the success of the i-Mac - it'll do the internet thing, but doesn't look like a normal PC. Can you find a market that might want to be connected but not via a beige square box. I can name quite a few people who might be interested. If it was cheaper than a PC as well, even better!
You are probably correct, but it's not quite what I meant - here we have Intel producing a consumer device that may compete with sections of Microsofts market (home market, possibly windows ce based browsers?). Microsoft is not famed for it's tolerance towards partners going into competition with it. Okay, Intel is one big partner/competitor to annoy, but it might result in less co-operation between the two, and therefore more consumer choice.
What other OS would you propose then? Linux has all the required services and hardware support already, and no licensing costs. No development costs. Does that explain why?
What you fail to understand is that that isn't how the Internet was back when it was academia-mostly. But it was still called the Internet then, too, while the rest of the world was subjected to IPX, SNA, OSI and all that.
Yes, but that is not what the internet is now, everything has moved on, and now Internet is used to refer to the interconnection of computers globally, with few restrictions on who can be part of it. Private versions are sometimes called intranets - why isn't this just an academic intranet? Acanet anyone?
How can something that is not "for sale" have a marketing feel?
Same reason as above - WHY did they call it Internet-2 if it does not, and is not intended to, resemble the CURRENT Internet(-1). If they want to keep it back as an Acadamic-only system, why give it a name that implies different? It doesn't really matter what the Internet originally was (why not call it Arpanet-2? That is also where it's roots lie) - they have chosen a publicity-seeking name, even if that wasn't their attention, although it would be hard to believe that was the case.
How else would you do it though, without every system being directly connected to every other? Each system can only have direct connections to so many others, and so to reach a system beyond it's immediate peers, some sort of routing will be required.
Surely this is no more Internet-2 then the UK's JANet (Joint Academic Network) was Internet-1. It's an educational WAN. Is it available fully internationally (Europe wide as well as USA and Singapore)? Does it link businesses as well as educational establishments? Are there plans to allow individual access?
Whether they like it or not, it can't be considered a true INTER-Net until it has individuals on it, with all the problems that creates, until it is open access then it is simply a Private WAN. Big deal. Mobil Corp have WAN Links. So does IBM. Are these Internet-3 and Internet-4. Can we all have our own Internets? Someone will need to establish a naming convention if we can!
From (quickly) reading the article, I don't think it would stop accelerating around obstacles, because it would appear to be a passive monitoriung system - rather than your car requesting speed limits from the system, the system keeps an eye for speeders and requests the car to slow down if the limit is being exceeded. Now, surely, this would mean that it would only react to prolonged speeding rather than bursts, and also, only to speed considered dangerous (I would hope). Part of the plan would appear to be to reduce congestion, so maybe it would mean variable limits depending on the conditions - and that might also mean raising limits not just reducing them.
It's 4am, the road is clear, the weather is good, your speed limiter informs you it has been ok'd up to 100mph, would you like to increase your speed?
You are correct. If you check, you will see that new centuries were always taken to start in a year starting in 01 and ending in 00. The 19th century was 1801-1900, the 20th was 1901-2000. Thus the 21st century and 3rd Millenium starts in 2001. Arthur C Clarke new the date was special. Now you do too.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a huge market segment that either a) doesn't want a PC or b) doesn't mind a PC but doesn't want one in every room. Look at how many (wired) phones there are in the world. Replace 50% of them with these boxes. Is that market big enough?
Alternatively, look at the mobile phone market, and how big that is - the devices are simple and appeal to non-techies these days. In the UK we're almost at saturation point (I think we're expected to hit 50% of the population over the next few years, not bad considering most toddlers don't have mobile phones, and I suspect few OAP's do percentagewise)
Computers actually only have a limited market share, so building a computer that looks like something else is not a bad idea, there are only so many people willing to keep upgrading their CPU's after all!
Since when does the word "Internet" have any reference to users, much less require "individuals"? (what's an individual anyway?) Internet is just that - an inter-network network. That is, it is a network that connects subnetworks. This term was chosen because the Internet connects thousands of organizations and their networks together. The Internet 2 also connects many organizations' networks, just not as many (and more selective) as Internet 1.
Oh dear. You disagree with me, so I'm stupid. Get out of bed the wrong side?
Now to address your points:
internet (small i) is taken to mean a network that connects other networks, which fits your argument.
Internet (small I) is taken to mean THE Internet, which is a network that is publically available and (amongst other purposes) transfers mail, files and information. As such, Internet-2 is a direct referral to the current Internet (big I) and that IS available to individuals (an individual is exactly what it says it is, look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what an individual is). So yes, within the currently understood context, "Internet" does have reference to being available to individuals.
Your argument would carry more weight if 1) you didn't insult people as part of it and 2) you posted from an account rather than anonymously
Extremely low isn't the same as zero though, and BeOS on intel hasn't been around as long as Linux I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming Intel will be using RedHat (they have an investment there don't they?) then they too have a company to back up the software quality. Unfortunately BeOS is probably not going to set the world alight - this is not a reflection on it's qualities, but probably true.
It's not really a consumer win for Linux, but it is an important possible foothold. I'll explain:
Two of the most common arguments against Linux are 1) it has no major applications for it, and 2) it is not used anywhere 'seriously'
If the Intel box takes off, this is a fairly important embedded use (if you don't think embedded usage is important, Motorola makes vast profits from embedded sales, and whilst it may not be now [I haven't checked for a few years], it was bigger than Intel, despite not controlling the CPU market). It also establishes Linux as a consumer OS, and after all, that is what makes Windows 9x so successful. Plenty of people don't really know the ins and outs of Windows, but they know they have it, they know they use it. They buy software and hardware because it's "Windows compatible". If your mum or dad is happy with their "Lintel" box, maybe they will buy a computer that "is compatible" with it if they want to upgrade...
If the devices take off big time then applications could follow: if everyone has ADSL to their home, shared between different devices (the PC, the Intel box etc.) and the device is cheap enough, why not have several of them, the kitchen, the bedroom, etc. People watch TV in bed, why not be able to browse in bed? Now, there are millions of these, maybe 25% of homes have them, maybe more. Is this a market for applications? Quite possibly. End of argument 1 above
Alot will depend on how it's packaged up I guess. You have to remember there are plenty of people who don't actually want a PC, but want to browse and do a little email. Look at the success of the i-Mac - it'll do the internet thing, but doesn't look like a normal PC. Can you find a market that might want to be connected but not via a beige square box. I can name quite a few people who might be interested. If it was cheaper than a PC as well, even better!
You are probably correct, but it's not quite what I meant - here we have Intel producing a consumer device that may compete with sections of Microsofts market (home market, possibly windows ce based browsers?). Microsoft is not famed for it's tolerance towards partners going into competition with it. Okay, Intel is one big partner/competitor to annoy, but it might result in less co-operation between the two, and therefore more consumer choice.
What other OS would you propose then? Linux has all the required services and hardware support already, and no licensing costs. No development costs. Does that explain why?
Not unless you start counting at 2 on your planet.
Could this be the beginning of the end of the Microsoft-Intel Axis?
No it's not.. oh, I've got them turned off...
And how are these virtual connections routed between systems that are not directly connected? Back to square one.
What you fail to understand is that that isn't how the Internet was back when it was academia-mostly. But it was still called the Internet then, too, while the rest of the world was subjected to IPX, SNA, OSI and all that.
Yes, but that is not what the internet is now, everything has moved on, and now Internet is used to refer to the interconnection of computers globally, with few restrictions on who can be part of it. Private versions are sometimes called intranets - why isn't this just an academic intranet? Acanet anyone?
How can something that is not "for sale" have a marketing feel?
Same reason as above - WHY did they call it Internet-2 if it does not, and is not intended to, resemble the CURRENT Internet(-1). If they want to keep it back as an Acadamic-only system, why give it a name that implies different? It doesn't really matter what the Internet originally was (why not call it Arpanet-2? That is also where it's roots lie) - they have chosen a publicity-seeking name, even if that wasn't their attention, although it would be hard to believe that was the case.
Sorry, which boundaries are you talking about? Physical ones? Domain names?
Isn't the correct symbol for the Internet a fluffy cloud? It always was on the diagrams I saw. Maybe I2 should be a sheep (a cloud with legs...).
How else would you do it though, without every system being directly connected to every other? Each system can only have direct connections to so many others, and so to reach a system beyond it's immediate peers, some sort of routing will be required.
Surely this is no more Internet-2 then the UK's JANet (Joint Academic Network) was Internet-1. It's an educational WAN. Is it available fully internationally (Europe wide as well as USA and Singapore)? Does it link businesses as well as educational establishments? Are there plans to allow individual access?
Whether they like it or not, it can't be considered a true INTER-Net until it has individuals on it, with all the problems that creates, until it is open access then it is simply a Private WAN. Big deal. Mobil Corp have WAN Links. So does IBM. Are these Internet-3 and Internet-4. Can we all have our own Internets? Someone will need to establish a naming convention if we can!
GPS (or a similar system) - the system will confirm your position against a map of speed restrictions.
From (quickly) reading the article, I don't think it would stop accelerating around obstacles, because it would appear to be a passive monitoriung system - rather than your car requesting speed limits from the system, the system keeps an eye for speeders and requests the car to slow down if the limit is being exceeded. Now, surely, this would mean that it would only react to prolonged speeding rather than bursts, and also, only to speed considered dangerous (I would hope). Part of the plan would appear to be to reduce congestion, so maybe it would mean variable limits depending on the conditions - and that might also mean raising limits not just reducing them.
It's 4am, the road is clear, the weather is good, your speed limiter informs you it has been ok'd up to 100mph, would you like to increase your speed?
So where do I go if I want to dispute the registration of http://www.domainmagistrate.com?
You are correct. If you check, you will see that new centuries were always taken to start in a year starting in 01 and ending in 00. The 19th century was 1801-1900, the 20th was 1901-2000. Thus the 21st century and 3rd Millenium starts in 2001. Arthur C Clarke new the date was special. Now you do too.