Trying to make Palm devices all things for all people would hurt its momentum.
One of the reasons why the CE platform (and the Newton before it) hasn't been successful is the attempt by various manufacturers to make, essentially, a mini-laptop...
This has the effect of sucking batteries and increasing size... which is the antithesis of the current Palm platform.
Color screens and CF coming to the platform may hurt big-time in the battery deparment... time will tell, although I must say, the prospect of having a Palm device with CF and stereo audio out (not there yet... but it will happen) has me jonzing for a Palm based MP3 player... perhaps Handspring will deliver.
This is all so reminiscent of the PC market back in the mid-80's when Compaq and Microsoft stole the PC market right out from under IBM's big blue nose... heh. (3 COM, R U listening?)
How has the 'mission' and/or purpose of cDc changed as the years have passed, especially with the advent of pervasive internet connectivity and the 'death' of classic dial-up BBS's?
I recently saw a Discovery Channel special on robots, and there was a segment about an experimental probe that is being worked on that would be dropped on Europa, bore through the ice, and, using the lander as a relay, this underwater probe would beam back LIVE SHOTS (as live as you can get with a 10 light-minute distance between here and Europa, anyway) from beneath Europa's ice crust.
Then there's the theory that life on Earth (and possibly Europa) developed first at geothermal vents deep in the Oceans... It would be so cool if we discoverd life there while Clarke is still alive. I'm sure he's hoping too.
MS ported Office and IE to the MAC 'cause they own part of Apple.
This whole "M$ owns part of Apple" concept is blown out of proportion. _I_ own part of Apple too, and even have more say than MS does with respect to voting in stockholder meetings etc. My point here is that M$ is a non-voting shareholder, not some nefarious big brother pulling Steve Job's strings.
M$ has a Mac version of office becuase: 1. There is a market for it. 2. They need to look like they're playing nice for anti-trust reasons. 3. They get good GUI insights for Windows by working closely with Apple. (Remember, Excel, PowerPoint and the GUI version of Word were all Mac apps before they came to the Windows platform. They even hired an early Mac GUI whiz, Steve Capps, back in the mid 90's) As far as M$ purchasing Visio, they did it because for reasons we are all familiar with: They can't innovate internally, and therefore need to purchase innovation.
When R5 first came out, I tried (and tried, and tried) to get the X installer to work to no avail... I think that the X installer is more a proof of concept & "gee whiz, we're creating an X installer" kind of thing than anything else. I think it stinks, too. Since then, I've always used the Red Hat installer, especially since, functionally, it is almost exactly the same as the Red Hat x86 installer, which I'm already familiar with.
Radio depends on carrier frequencies (e.g. 105.5 Mhz FM) to modulate data onto... From what I read from the article, this technology is a simple synchronus serial bus that uses electromagnetic pulses (square waves) rather than carriers (sinusoids). Data could be both amplitude and psuedo-frequency modulated using this scheme, all without interfering with current communications standards and would be highly immune to noise. {unlike slashdot (-: }
Stupid people trying to kill something they don't understand....
Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to this representative:
Hello Mr. May.
Although I am no longer a constituent in Arizona, I did grow up and go to college there. I worked for Intel as a circuit design engineer from 1994 through last year, and I must tell you that your proposed bill to ban serialized integrated circuits is, at best, and uninformed attempt to ban a technology you do not even understand.
Intel's press release that it's serialized Pentium III's was little more than a marketing ploy, albeit a poorly orchestrated one. I will not argue that Intel's suggested use of serialization on it's chips leave many questions regarding privacy unanswered but consider the following:
1. It is quite likely that Intel has been selling (and manufacturing in Arizona) IC's that have been serialized for years. 2. Other manufacturers also have motivation serialize their chips. Motorola is an example. 3. Many other components on a PC, such as motherboard BIOS's, Ethernet network cards, and thousands, possibly millions of components already in use contain serialization. 4. Most (if not all) software on the market includes a unique serial ID that is easily readable through software and can be used to 'track' users. Windows 98 automatic software update feature is a good example of a technology that already makes good use of this type of technology.
The bill you propose could have the following consequences if, by some odd twist of fate, it were to pass: 1. It would cripple the computing infrastructure of most companies, since the local area network (ethernet) cards would become illegal. 2. The ban on manufacture of serialized chips would likely shut down operations of large portions of two of the biggest employers in Arizona, namely, Intel and Motorola, even if the aforementioned network card issue was given reprieve. Let's not forget ST Microelectronics, Honeywell/Bull, Burr Brown and Microchip. 3. The ensuing economic disruption would surely cost the Arizona legislature millions (if not billions) in litigation defending cases brought by these companies, not to mention the economic havoc that would be associated with turning tens of thousands of Arizonan's away from their jobs. 4. It would demonstrate that Arizona's state legislature is as uninformed and non-sensical as is sometimes joked about by it constituents.
Slashdot Mirror
Not!
Trying to make Palm devices all things for all people would hurt its momentum.
One of the reasons why the CE platform (and the Newton before it) hasn't been successful is the attempt by various manufacturers to make, essentially, a mini-laptop...
This has the effect of sucking batteries and increasing size... which is the antithesis of the current Palm platform.
Color screens and CF coming to the platform may hurt big-time in the battery deparment... time will tell, although I must say, the prospect of having a Palm device with CF and stereo audio out (not there yet... but it will happen) has me jonzing for a Palm based MP3 player... perhaps Handspring will deliver.
This is all so reminiscent of the PC market back in the mid-80's when Compaq and Microsoft stole the PC market right out from under IBM's big blue nose... heh. (3 COM, R U listening?)
-t
How has the 'mission' and/or purpose of cDc changed as the years have passed, especially with the advent of pervasive internet connectivity and the 'death' of classic dial-up BBS's?
I didn't know rhodopsin could be used in this way... Our eyes (or more specifically, our retinas) are loaded with the stuff.
-t
I recently saw a Discovery Channel special on robots, and there was a segment about an experimental probe that is being worked on that would be dropped on Europa, bore through the ice, and, using the lander as a relay, this underwater probe would beam back LIVE SHOTS (as live as you can get with a 10 light-minute distance between here and Europa, anyway) from beneath Europa's ice crust.
Then there's the theory that life on Earth (and possibly Europa) developed first at geothermal vents deep in the Oceans... It would be so cool if we discoverd life there while Clarke is still alive. I'm sure he's hoping too.
-t
(this is admittedly a bit off-topic)
MS ported Office and IE to the MAC 'cause they own part of Apple.
This whole "M$ owns part of Apple" concept is blown out of proportion. _I_ own part of Apple too, and even have more say than MS does with respect to voting in stockholder meetings etc. My point here is that M$ is a non-voting shareholder, not some nefarious big brother pulling Steve Job's strings.
M$ has a Mac version of office becuase:
1. There is a market for it.
2. They need to look like they're playing nice for anti-trust reasons.
3. They get good GUI insights for Windows by working closely with Apple.
(Remember, Excel, PowerPoint and the GUI version of Word were all Mac apps before they came to the Windows platform. They even hired an early Mac GUI whiz, Steve Capps, back in the mid 90's)
As far as M$ purchasing Visio, they did it because for reasons we are all familiar with:
They can't innovate internally, and therefore need to purchase innovation.
Uh oh, am I standing on a soapbox?
-t
When R5 first came out, I tried (and tried, and tried) to get the X installer to work to no avail... I think that the X installer is more a proof of concept & "gee whiz, we're creating an X installer" kind of thing than anything else. I think it stinks, too. Since then, I've always used the Red Hat installer, especially since, functionally, it is almost exactly the same as the Red Hat x86 installer, which I'm already familiar with.
-toby
I think the technology differs from radio...
Radio depends on carrier frequencies (e.g. 105.5 Mhz FM) to modulate data onto... From what I read from the article, this technology is a simple synchronus serial bus that uses electromagnetic pulses (square waves) rather than carriers (sinusoids). Data could be both amplitude and psuedo-frequency modulated using this scheme, all without interfering with current communications standards and would be highly immune to noise. {unlike slashdot (-: }
-t-
Dude (Dudette?)...
The possiblity of being identified by a serial # over the net has been a possiblity for _years_.
Checkout this site if you have a network card and know its hardware (MAC) address. Should be something like 02:06:82:45:34.
Stupid people trying to kill something they don't understand....
Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to this representative:
Hello Mr. May.
Although I am no longer a constituent in Arizona, I did grow up and go to college there. I worked for Intel as a circuit design engineer from 1994 through last year, and I must tell you that your proposed bill to ban serialized integrated circuits is, at best, and uninformed attempt to ban a technology you do not even understand.
Intel's press release that it's serialized Pentium III's was little more than a marketing ploy, albeit a poorly orchestrated one. I will not argue that Intel's suggested use of serialization on it's chips leave many questions regarding privacy unanswered but consider the following:
1. It is quite likely that Intel has been selling (and manufacturing in Arizona) IC's that have been serialized for years.
2. Other manufacturers also have motivation serialize their chips. Motorola is an example.
3. Many other components on a PC, such as motherboard BIOS's, Ethernet network cards, and thousands, possibly millions of components already in use contain serialization.
4. Most (if not all) software on the market includes a unique serial ID that is easily readable through software and can be used to 'track' users. Windows 98 automatic software update feature is a good example of a technology that already makes good use of this type of technology.
The bill you propose could have the following consequences if, by some odd twist of fate, it were to pass:
1. It would cripple the computing infrastructure of most companies, since the local area network (ethernet) cards would become illegal.
2. The ban on manufacture of serialized chips would likely shut down operations of large portions of two of the biggest employers in Arizona, namely, Intel and Motorola, even if the aforementioned network card issue was given reprieve. Let's not forget ST Microelectronics, Honeywell/Bull, Burr Brown and Microchip.
3. The ensuing economic disruption would surely cost the Arizona legislature millions (if not billions) in litigation defending cases brought by these companies, not to mention the economic havoc that would be associated with turning tens of thousands of Arizonan's away from their jobs.
4. It would demonstrate that Arizona's state legislature is as uninformed and non-sensical as is sometimes joked about by it constituents.
Sincerely,
-name omitted for \. post-