It's a stopgap measure. These are companies who are already running XP. The problem is that XP support is running out, so virtual XP mode does nothing to mitigate the actual problem. It simply makes the transition to Win7 a bit smoother (sometimes)
You don't need to retrain someone to use the app - its the exact same application it just runs in a different browser. You don't need to worry about re-certifying and supporting because you'll have to do that with a virtualized system anyways.
I made a post a bit futher up about how you basically save money in the long run by simply paying the dev costs for that upgrade as opposed to a licensing solution. Licensing something to run an obsolete product is a terrible idea, there are very few circumstances where it would even make sense financially.
I never said it was cheap - but you basically nailed it; If the option were to spend the money licensing a Virtual IE6 or spent rewriting the apps - what would companies do?
Lets say it takes you 6 months and 3 programmers at 80k annually to rewrite the software - so 120k + the cost of not having them work on other projects. Or you had the alternative to license virtual IE 6 at 30 dollars a month per machine. Lets say you've got 500 PC's in your company.
Your money breaks even after 8 months, and the first option cuts off your spending and has a higher probability of lasting longer. If you want another 2 years out of your product, are you willing to spend 240000 dollars just to save your 3 programmers 6 months of time?
blaming facebook is just shifting responsibility and personal accountability away from you when things go wrong because you weren't discreet
If only the system works like you described. Like someone said earlier, you have more to worry about from OTHER people's posts than you really do your own. Let's say I make a Facebook page - but I don't enter any information but my name and photo. I don't add any of my friends, I basically be a social outcast and hermit on Facebook.
Facebook still allows people to tag "nothings" in photos, so they can tag me in a photo and I won't get ANY notification because the Tag itself won't like to my page - instead it'll just say my name when they hover over it. A potential employer does some research on me - and they find that I have a facebook account but can't see anything but my picture. They then continue their goolge search and see a random picture someone put up of me with my tag on it and know its me because of the photo.
Damn - all I did was enter my name and a good photo of myself - and my reputation got ruined outside of my control.
Even if you do take the idea of losing a friend lightly - the idea of losing your job over something your asshole friend posted was not at all addressed by your post.
And burning a bridge makes that all the more likely to happen.
When people get comfortable enough with something, they don't look for new products to replace it.
This is what I don't get:
People are willing to put in the money and effort to try and virtualize IE 6 but the same amount could probably have gone in to upgrading their web application to run on IE8
Exactly. Often times just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it should be easily doable. In most cases, the main deterrant is the amount of effort required to preform the action, so no law is really needed.
I also wonder what the GP's thoughts are on Firesheep - I mean sidejacking is considered illegal but when you're doing it over an unsecured WiFi its like the information has become public. But you can do a lot of damage by simply logging in under someone else's Facebook. Most teenagers would love to screw around with a friend's facebook - but wouldn't bother because of the work required to get that info. Now an add-on makes it a bit easier.
These are seperate devices, not in your mobile phones, that you wear. They simply have their own battery power and provide the backbone for your network.
That's generally how it is at most jobs though - your employer isn't always going to let you take thorough notes on how to do everything - it'll be quick jots on a pad of paper - you'll be expected to remember most of what you are told.
If you aren't an Aural learner, I think you should be trained to be one. Being trained to sit in a desk all day only makes you better at sitting in a desk all day - which I know there are a lot of jobs for but its not a hard skill to pick up.
Math is the rare exception where for whatever reason the school system spends 10% of the time introducing the concepts and 90% of the time reinforcing them. It is one of the only subjects where I've seen students consistently get 100% - because there is only 1 right answer, the teacher can't judge with any kind of prejudice, and once you understand the concept the only thing to improve on is how long it takes you to do it.
I didn't collaboratively discuss my way through long div or trig - but it did help a lot for calculus.
Grades 1 through 6 for me had 30 to 45 minute sessions throughout the day, and you almost always changed classrooms for each session (This room is the Math room, that room is the English room, that Room is the Music room) - so anytime you switched subjects you were basically switching rooms.
Ultimately, Junior high came around, and it was basically the same, except classes were 45 minutes to an hour ish, and you had lockers, and slightly more time in between classes. Then High school came around and it was almost the same except classes were at least an hour long, sometimes 2. Which did seem a bit confining but it was something I got worked into so it wasn't so bad.
The new definition of "Beta" is "I have enough users to come across more bugs in 1 night than I would if I were to try and test it all by myself all week".
I really hate EA with a vengance and would loved to see them crash and burn so that more space opens up for indie companies, but I seriously doubt that a "social gaming" company with 3 successfull games in a market space limited to 150 million users is worth more than a traditional game publisher with multiple successful games in a market space with more than 1.9 billion people (the number of people connected to the Internet, the real number is probably bigger)
Well I mean if you liquidated all of EA's assets and things like that - you'd no doubt come out ahead in actual money in each of the companies - but in terms of invested future interest, EA has a bad rep to them amongst a lot of gamers. You yourself admit you hate them with a vengeance. I don't mind them when they stick to sports titles. Anyone who ISN'T a gamer has no real view on EA besides our influence. Zynga games however, are far more accessible - Facebook isn't restricted by region (unless you're living under one of those dictatorships that try to block it out). Facebook doesn't have publishing costs. Facebook is widely adopted.
All those things add up - which is why they are saying that the "estimated worth" of the company is pretty large.
The trickey part of the interface design will be determaning which sorts of brain activity are useful as thought events and what program features it makes sence to tie to them.
We're slowly getting there. People have been able to do this sort of thing using just the brain-waves - not even really jacking into the brain or getting any direct signal from the brain but just by the effects of what your brain normally sends out. Like alpha waves are typically associated with being more relaxed and sleeping, and beta is supposed to be more awake and focused - things like that. There's actually a game at the local science center where you put on this little belt that goes around your head where a cap would sit and it reads the beta waves from you and your opponent, and you both basically sit there trying to out-alpha-wave each other. It's actually kind of fun - we weren't sure if this thing was just a sham or if it was really set up to work - but we noticed it got no readings when no one was wearing it, and when we tried to force one player to win (one person be relaxed while the other be focused) things worked in our favour nearly all of the time, so there is something to it.
A projects have been able to go a step further, taking certain brain-activity like hyper/calm mentality is one axis while attention/unfocused is another, because you can calmly focus on an object by simply looking at it in a general sense for its shape and properties whereas a focused hyper mentality would be more sporadicly looking at all the tiny details.
It's pretty neat stuff, at first things won't go how you want them to but it ends up being that you train your brain to work with the interface while the interface slightly adjusts itself to better cater to you.
On the one hand, the control and abilities of computers would grow by leaps and bounds if they were mind-controlled.
On the other hand, there's something to be said of tactile feedback. I'm not sure if brain-->computer would be as satisfying as brain-->hands-->computer.
You don't actually need tactile feedback for a lot of things. A lot of people don't like touch keyboards because the lack of tactile feedback but what they really want is -ANY- form of feedback. Most touch keyboards do of course, highlight the key you are pressing but of course your finger is in the way so you can't see it.
You would have a greater access to visual feedback - instead of needing to feel the "press" of a button you would simply be able to SEE your input, and if you didn't like it, you could go back and change it, like when you type really fast and read your typos. This is something that tactile feedback doesn't provide.
Mind controlled devices are the way of the future - they just need the proper IO. As for the article, wasn't there some kind of brain game the guys at Penny Arcade were invited to Demo? Didn't they do a strip about it and the joke was that Gabe didn't have sufficient brain power to power the device? Anyways - was there a significant advancement in the field or is this the fifth or sixth or millionth group of scientists who has now claimed they can do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said anything about incriminating.
I'm talking photos at a bar or a party.
It's a stopgap measure. These are companies who are already running XP. The problem is that XP support is running out, so virtual XP mode does nothing to mitigate the actual problem. It simply makes the transition to Win7 a bit smoother (sometimes)
You don't need to retrain someone to use the app - its the exact same application it just runs in a different browser. You don't need to worry about re-certifying and supporting because you'll have to do that with a virtualized system anyways.
I made a post a bit futher up about how you basically save money in the long run by simply paying the dev costs for that upgrade as opposed to a licensing solution. Licensing something to run an obsolete product is a terrible idea, there are very few circumstances where it would even make sense financially.
I never said it was cheap - but you basically nailed it; If the option were to spend the money licensing a Virtual IE6 or spent rewriting the apps - what would companies do?
Lets say it takes you 6 months and 3 programmers at 80k annually to rewrite the software - so 120k + the cost of not having them work on other projects.
Or you had the alternative to license virtual IE 6 at 30 dollars a month per machine. Lets say you've got 500 PC's in your company.
Your money breaks even after 8 months, and the first option cuts off your spending and has a higher probability of lasting longer. If you want another 2 years out of your product, are you willing to spend 240000 dollars just to save your 3 programmers 6 months of time?
blaming facebook is just shifting responsibility and personal accountability away from you when things go wrong because you weren't discreet
If only the system works like you described. Like someone said earlier, you have more to worry about from OTHER people's posts than you really do your own. Let's say I make a Facebook page - but I don't enter any information but my name and photo. I don't add any of my friends, I basically be a social outcast and hermit on Facebook.
Facebook still allows people to tag "nothings" in photos, so they can tag me in a photo and I won't get ANY notification because the Tag itself won't like to my page - instead it'll just say my name when they hover over it. A potential employer does some research on me - and they find that I have a facebook account but can't see anything but my picture. They then continue their goolge search and see a random picture someone put up of me with my tag on it and know its me because of the photo.
Damn - all I did was enter my name and a good photo of myself - and my reputation got ruined outside of my control.
Even if you do take the idea of losing a friend lightly - the idea of losing your job over something your asshole friend posted was not at all addressed by your post.
And burning a bridge makes that all the more likely to happen.
When people get comfortable enough with something, they don't look for new products to replace it.
This is what I don't get:
People are willing to put in the money and effort to try and virtualize IE 6 but the same amount could probably have gone in to upgrading their web application to run on IE8
Exactly. Often times just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it should be easily doable. In most cases, the main deterrant is the amount of effort required to preform the action, so no law is really needed.
I also wonder what the GP's thoughts are on Firesheep - I mean sidejacking is considered illegal but when you're doing it over an unsecured WiFi its like the information has become public. But you can do a lot of damage by simply logging in under someone else's Facebook. Most teenagers would love to screw around with a friend's facebook - but wouldn't bother because of the work required to get that info. Now an add-on makes it a bit easier.
Maybe that's all the relevant info from the article and they spared us the rest.
Yeah. Can someone link me to a sample infected website plz? kthxbai
Re-read the summary, if you even did that.
These are seperate devices, not in your mobile phones, that you wear. They simply have their own battery power and provide the backbone for your network.
That's generally how it is at most jobs though - your employer isn't always going to let you take thorough notes on how to do everything - it'll be quick jots on a pad of paper - you'll be expected to remember most of what you are told.
If you aren't an Aural learner, I think you should be trained to be one. Being trained to sit in a desk all day only makes you better at sitting in a desk all day - which I know there are a lot of jobs for but its not a hard skill to pick up.
Math is the rare exception where for whatever reason the school system spends 10% of the time introducing the concepts and 90% of the time reinforcing them. It is one of the only subjects where I've seen students consistently get 100% - because there is only 1 right answer, the teacher can't judge with any kind of prejudice, and once you understand the concept the only thing to improve on is how long it takes you to do it.
I didn't collaboratively discuss my way through long div or trig - but it did help a lot for calculus.
Grades 1 through 6 for me had 30 to 45 minute sessions throughout the day, and you almost always changed classrooms for each session (This room is the Math room, that room is the English room, that Room is the Music room) - so anytime you switched subjects you were basically switching rooms.
Ultimately, Junior high came around, and it was basically the same, except classes were 45 minutes to an hour ish, and you had lockers, and slightly more time in between classes. Then High school came around and it was almost the same except classes were at least an hour long, sometimes 2. Which did seem a bit confining but it was something I got worked into so it wasn't so bad.
Was that not the case for you?
So then what 64 bit browser is he using that makes these agnostic addons easy to add?
I say ditch the desk part altogether.
I learned more in collaborative discussions with my teachers and peers than I ever did by reading and taking notes.
The new definition of "Beta" is "I have enough users to come across more bugs in 1 night than I would if I were to try and test it all by myself all week".
No! Never! I use Netscape Navigator 2.0! This Browser War isn't over yet!
How many addons do you have for it?
You're a fan of Duke Nukem, I see.
The lack of infrastructure does not really discredit the theory.
The theory of it being a cell phone?
Yes, yes it does.
I really hate EA with a vengance and would loved to see them crash and burn so that more space opens up for indie companies, but I seriously doubt that a "social gaming" company with 3 successfull games in a market space limited to 150 million users is worth more than a traditional game publisher with multiple successful games in a market space with more than 1.9 billion people (the number of people connected to the Internet, the real number is probably bigger)
Well I mean if you liquidated all of EA's assets and things like that - you'd no doubt come out ahead in actual money in each of the companies - but in terms of invested future interest, EA has a bad rep to them amongst a lot of gamers. You yourself admit you hate them with a vengeance. I don't mind them when they stick to sports titles. Anyone who ISN'T a gamer has no real view on EA besides our influence. Zynga games however, are far more accessible - Facebook isn't restricted by region (unless you're living under one of those dictatorships that try to block it out). Facebook doesn't have publishing costs. Facebook is widely adopted.
All those things add up - which is why they are saying that the "estimated worth" of the company is pretty large.
The trickey part of the interface design will be determaning which sorts of brain activity are useful as thought events and what program features it makes sence to tie to them.
We're slowly getting there. People have been able to do this sort of thing using just the brain-waves - not even really jacking into the brain or getting any direct signal from the brain but just by the effects of what your brain normally sends out. Like alpha waves are typically associated with being more relaxed and sleeping, and beta is supposed to be more awake and focused - things like that. There's actually a game at the local science center where you put on this little belt that goes around your head where a cap would sit and it reads the beta waves from you and your opponent, and you both basically sit there trying to out-alpha-wave each other. It's actually kind of fun - we weren't sure if this thing was just a sham or if it was really set up to work - but we noticed it got no readings when no one was wearing it, and when we tried to force one player to win (one person be relaxed while the other be focused) things worked in our favour nearly all of the time, so there is something to it.
A projects have been able to go a step further, taking certain brain-activity like hyper/calm mentality is one axis while attention/unfocused is another, because you can calmly focus on an object by simply looking at it in a general sense for its shape and properties whereas a focused hyper mentality would be more sporadicly looking at all the tiny details.
It's pretty neat stuff, at first things won't go how you want them to but it ends up being that you train your brain to work with the interface while the interface slightly adjusts itself to better cater to you.
On the one hand, the control and abilities of computers would grow by leaps and bounds if they were mind-controlled.
On the other hand, there's something to be said of tactile feedback. I'm not sure if brain-->computer would be as satisfying as brain-->hands-->computer.
You don't actually need tactile feedback for a lot of things. A lot of people don't like touch keyboards because the lack of tactile feedback but what they really want is -ANY- form of feedback. Most touch keyboards do of course, highlight the key you are pressing but of course your finger is in the way so you can't see it.
You would have a greater access to visual feedback - instead of needing to feel the "press" of a button you would simply be able to SEE your input, and if you didn't like it, you could go back and change it, like when you type really fast and read your typos. This is something that tactile feedback doesn't provide.
Mind controlled devices are the way of the future - they just need the proper IO. As for the article, wasn't there some kind of brain game the guys at Penny Arcade were invited to Demo? Didn't they do a strip about it and the joke was that Gabe didn't have sufficient brain power to power the device? Anyways - was there a significant advancement in the field or is this the fifth or sixth or millionth group of scientists who has now claimed they can do it.
Oracle - how did Google get their hands on it in the first place?