Is there really much money in porting OS X to x86? There's so much competition for the high-end desktop/low end server in x86 platform. You've got Win NT/2000, Linux, BSD varieties, etc. Besides, porting an entire OS and all of its applications to another processor type is not easy, nor cheap (if I recall, there are a lot of people working on LinuxPPC, and the alpha linux platform). It's probably not worth the development time to them.
Apple makes loads of money by selling it's proprietary hardware. If people like Mac OS X, they have to buy Apple hardware, more money for Apple. If you can have Mac OS X for x86, why would someone want to spend a fair amount more for the PPC/G4 technology when processors and hardware for AMD/Intel is much cheaper? Even a few people posting about this article say they're now considering buying Mac hardware to try out this BSD based OS. If Apple markets Mac OS X well enough, they'll increase sales in their hardware significantly.
Demonstrating some of the new capabilities found in the Public Beta of Mac OS X, Jobs explained that it takes a PowerBook anywhere from eight to 22 seconds to wake-up from sleep under Mac OS 9, depending on networking settings. Under Mac OS X Public Beta, the unit takes only one second to wake up from sleep.
"Oops it didn't work," said Jobs after the screen lit up but the PowerBook wasn't fully functional. Embarrassingly putting the PowerBook back to sleep, Jobs tried again.
"Something's going wrong here, [but] when it works, it actually wakes up in about one second," said Jobs.
Reminds me of the presentation that Microsoft did awhile back. Anyway, I don't know (provided I had a powermac) if I'd want to use this new Mac OS X public beta:-)
Ok, this looks like something worthwhile to try. Though I have a few questions. First, does anything it use run as root? It opens TCP port 1062 (accessible by normal users), but perhaps it needs root access to some other root-only system files (this would be my guess).
Also, does this sort of program work well with Portsentry? Also, it'd be nice if this FreeVeracity client program acted in a similar fashion to LogCheck by checking the syslog-generated files. Then you could use one program to monitor critical file changes, illegal port scans, attempted hack-ins, everything in one bag. Perhaps FreeVeracity provides more functionality than I'm assuming though. I'd like to hear what anyone has to say.
Interesting that the DVDCCA is bashing open source (ok, they make some very negative deragatory comments about "open source" which seemed to mock it.), when they use it. I did an HTTP request to dvdcca.org, and they apparently use Apache 1.3.3 on Unix. Try it yourself, if you'd like. Funny, considering the hypocrisy post earlier today.
It should be operational in about 2 years. Why not use distributed computing (like SETI) to handle processing the data from this thing? It would be very cool to get data blocks from such a state-of-the-art device. Granted, it isn't looking for little green men, but I'm sure they have a fair amount of data processing to handle.
Seriously though, the attraction to Linux is of the technical-minded. I still don't see too many advantages for the regular user (except for perhaps internet appliances powered by Linux).
That's pretty simple. Not too many computers are shipped with firewire pre-installed. Not only that, there are fewer devices for it (still more high speed SCSI devices). I like firewire, but in working with hundreds of new and used computers at work and school, I haven't encountered much firewire - it's just not popular. USB is built onto most ATX motherboards now, and has cross-platform support.
When I first read about USB (wow, I don't even remember when exactly, before it became mainstream), I looked at its speed capability and I thought that was a stupid mistake. Here you have a standard that allows for hot-swappable devices connected in long chains all taking up just one set of resources. Since USB came out I was hoping that the faster standard (or pseudo-standard, it's not really that popular) firewire would take off because of speed.
Now it would seem that they're improving the USB standard so it fixes the largest negative against it - speed. Before this external hard drives and even CD-ROM drives weren't practical. I mean, it beat serial speeds by far, but it didn't even come close to Ultra-wide SCSI (my favored external interface...and internal too if the hard drives weren't so expensive:-).
It's just too bad that now the current USB implementation is everywhere, and it'll take awhile to move to this new standard. Oh well, can't have everything.
Is another Mac-like cycle of game development. Game comes out for Windows, everyone buys it. 6 months to 2 years later they release it for Mac/Linux/FreeBSD, and most who wanted it already had it.
I just can't see serious demand for FreeBSD games if they are released so much later than the Windows counterparts. Then when we find out that Linux software games have light sales it won't help the cause to create Linux/BSD versions of these games at the same time as the Windows version. I wish Loki good luck at selling their FreeBSD games.
...and help reclaim some of the server market from NT/2k(a NOS that thinks it's a workstation) BR>No no, you've got it all wrong. NT/2k is a workstation that thinks it's a network operating system.
Meta Group Inc. analyst Peter Firstbrook goes so far as to say that "Linux should be shunned. It should not be a part of the business process." Firstbrook objects to the very feature that most tout as Linux's number one asset--the fact that anyone can tweak the code--because it creates a situation in which an IT staffer may make changes that no one else knows about, and that probably go undocumented.
Firstbrook also takes issue with Linux's most famous feature--the fact that it is free. "Our analysis says that the cost of the operating system is only 3 percent of the total cost of ownership of the server," he says. Labor is a far more significant proportion of IT costs, and the very cost that is likely to be affected if employees spend time tinkering with Linux.
"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor," he says. "Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous," he says
While I can't say for certain, I'd venture to say that Peter Firstbrook hasn't really used Linux. I must agree that for a large company the actually operating system cost is small, and that is not a good reason to pick Linux over others (unless you're a smaller company where software is prohibitively expensive, or an individual setting up a system on DSL or cable).
However, without the cost factor, Linux still has plenty going for it. From my experience, it's quite stable (not perfect, but it definately beats NT from my observations, and I've seen many a NT server as well as a variety of different Linux boxes). The ability to tweak code is just that, an ability. If you don't want employees doing that, then make a policy against it, though IMO that's dumb. Better to have the choice to use source than not. The greater benefit comes from the large amounts of bug fixes and security holes discovered and patched because the software is open-source. So IT people can keep up with updates to keep the computers more secure and reliable (as opposed to waiting for bug fixes from Microsoft in the latest service pack).
I seriously beg to differ with using Linux for the "cool" factor. Individuals perhaps (hey, I use Linux and home and work 'cause I like it), but companies don't pick an OS because they think it's cool. It has to offer advantages over the competition. Linux does, in the form of price, scalability, stability, and the benefits of open-source software (among many others, depending on use). I'll be the first to tell you that Linux doesn't work for every company, or for every purpose. If your web developers want ASP scripts and other NT-proprietary technology, then NT is the way to go, using Linux isn't practical.
Anyway, back to my point (I guess I have to make one up now). Don't tell people to shun an operating system because it provides more freedom than others. Linux is a valid choice as much as NT or any flavor of UNIX.
Let's not forget that the communities (KDE or Gnome) do not need to bother with spying. Both are open-source, so they just look at the code and have more than they could want, and still legally use it. Granted, I doubt that either side would want to do that much, considering the different library bases. The holy wars are mainly among the users, not the developers, they're too busy:-).
What if I don't want to use RPMs? I mean, I love them personally, and use them because I'm lazy for installing upgrades and such of certain programs (Gaim comes to mind). What if I didn't have root access on a computer I wanted to use it on?
Ah well, I guess I'll have to agree that I'll be sticking with Gaim on this one, I haven't found a piece of AOL software that's been stable (AOLpress, AOL IM, AOL 3.0-5.0) so I find it hard to believe that this will be (even in production)
Can anyone explain exactly why "Linux" was always highlighted in blue? I thought most buzzwords were clear enough without making them a different color.
Please note that I am a strong fan of Linux and run it as my main operating system, but I don't think it needs distinction among other words in a sentence.
If any of these projects actually produce a product that has a chance of switching current Windows users, how long do you think it would take for Microsoft to sue? I have strong doubts about it even being feasible though, considering many Windows standards are closed-source. Would reverse-compiling be involved to get needed info? If so, that is more than enough grounds for a winning lawsuit.
Ya know, at first this struck me as a great little device. Then I realized it was a huge waste of money. For $500 you could build a relatively nice system to dedicate to the Seti purpose (approx. prices - case: $40, motherboard: 100, ethernet card: $20, processor: what $340 can buy at the moment) and you have all the parts needed to keep a Seti machine running (granted, you need to borrow some parts for setup).
In addition, you could use the computer for other fun things (personal server, etc) or turn it into a regular computer within reasonable cost. This processor card is unadaptable (at least without some serious hacking). If the card was made to be programmable, then people may find all sorts of interesting uses for it (such as other distributed projects).
Anyway, even if you don't want another computer, but had $500 to spend...I would consider getting a dual-processor motherboard with another processor (depending on speed)...though I'm not sure Seti@Home can support multiple processors, is it a multi-threaded program?
I just don't think the thing is worth even the most devout Seti fan's money, as cool as it may look in one's computer =)
I couldn't agree more. I run Linux as my main platform, and have a choice between Netscape 4.x (I think I use 4.61 at home), the latest milestone of Mozilla (I've tried that), and a beta version of Konqueror (from KDE 2.0, haven't tried it), and lynx (had to include it =). Basically Netscape 4.x is the most complete (if most bloated) option of all of these. I've been using 4.x for a long, long time, hoping that they would release something more stable. As it stands Netscape is probably the least stable program on my Linux box. I tried Mozilla a few weeks ago and it worked ok...but not any better than Netscape, they both have their quirks.
I'd jump at downloading an improved/faster/more stable web browser (even if it only has one of those three things going for it) to replace 4.x. There just isn't anything out there yet. I'm afraid to say that I'd probably find myself switching to IE if they offered it for Linux (even though I've been using Netscape since version 2), because I've actually had pretty good experience with the latest versions of IE.
I can't really complain though, these browsers are all free, and the product of many people's time, much of it being volunteer. I just hope that in the next 6 months or so I'll be able to switch to something new and better (I'm thinking Konqueror looks nice...I'm a KDE fan). I fear there are other people like me who use Windows instead and have switched to IE because Netscape hasn't been improving..that may explain the increased market share.
What I meant by "everyone" was both Scour and the studios representing the MPAA. These studios want to make money, not pay their lawyers more than they have to - because that's a business expense. The same with Scour, they'd obviously prefer this lawsuit wasn't taking place, it's going to take a lot of money off of a startup that would otherwise be spending that money improving their service.
The best the MPAA can hope for is a shutdown of Scour's linking service. They probably won't be able to recoup much legal fees (provided they win), so I think they'll probably lose money on this lawsuit because of the legal fees.
The article states that Scour willingly removes the links of any copyright owner who requests that such a link be removed to their material. Also, Scour has made a few movie trailer/promotion deals with studios on their web site. This same studios (such as Hollywood) are now plaintiffs in this lawsuit!
The studios were apparently thinking about working with Scour for content, but instead have slammed them with a lawsuit through the MPAA. This is the wrong move, following the lead of the RIAA and Napster - it's not the way to make money. The studios want money, and few people have the bandwidth to download such movies right now - so these studios aren't losing money. IMO, it's far better from a business-stance to make deals and do movie promotions with a company like Scour - that could actually lead to some revenue. These lawsuits just lose money for everyone in legal fees.
From the looks of it, they've actually made this particular new version of Palm worse than the previous ones. Technology has a trend of making things better, but making them cheaper at the same time. This new Palm only follows the second rule. The screen is 25% smaller (and this article markets it as if it's a feature), and the thing runs on Alkalines - it's back to the Palm III!
Personally, I'd rather have a Palm Palm V when they reduce the price (or discontinue and find them clearanced) down to $150. That way I can have my pretty nice-looking screen (after you install the hack to make the backlight look normal instead of reversed as by default), built-in lithium ion batteries (incredibly preferable over alkaline or do-it-yourself NiMH), and a convenient dock. The changable plastic pieces don't do anything for me, I kinda like the silver Palm V myself (why don't they just offer different colors but not make them changable? Everyone loses those things anyway).
Anyway, I hope the generation after this one provides an improvement over what we already have.
I for one, have been using computers since _before_ around preschool. In Kindergarden I played with a Commadore 64 with some math and English programs. The same went for 1st and 2nd grade. Computers weren't part of the teaching curriculum, we actually didn't use them all that much (there were two available). However, we were given the choice of how to spend our free time, and I remember after having my spelling done in 1st grade going over to see if I could beat the latest high score in a fast-paced basic math quiz (I got really good at adding/multiplying numbers).
I wholeheartedly agree that computers are not the perfect teaching tool for young students. However, I do like the concept of having a few computers available when the students are allowed to choose their activities (reading, recess, a video, etc.). In 1st and 2nd grade we produced a newspaper a few times a week. The year I left they moved from a copied handwritten (completely by the students) to a typed out version. Such an activity helps cooperation (it was a class-wide effort), English skills, and how to use computers to produce something useful. I got a few copies of the newspaper after I left, and it's quite impressive.
In conclusion, computers have their place in younger education. They should not be used for mass teaching, but rather for independant exploration, or as a research tool in the library.
The X-box (provided it's ever released close to what they're claiming it will have now) is basically standard PC hardware. A rule of standard PC hardware is that it decreases in price incredibly quickly over short periods of time, even more than proprietary technology (such as those proprietary chipsets and such used by other consoles).
If the X-box is released in 18 months, it could be set below the cost of the hardware, if the price only goes down gradually (such as that seen by other consoles) the cost of producing the machines will decrease dramatically. So the longer the X-box remains on the market, the more money it makes on each box, even compared to the lifetimes of other consoles.
And about upgrades, I can't imagine MS creating a product without the need for a few software patches after it comes out to fix bugs (and create new ones). We'll see what happens.
I did a little searching (ok, very little) about the merger, and found this interesting article from Yahoo.
Apparently AT&T agreed to drop it's opposition to the merger between US West and Quest in exchange for the two companies dropping their request to AT&T's cable systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there really much money in porting OS X to x86? There's so much competition for the high-end desktop/low end server in x86 platform. You've got Win NT/2000, Linux, BSD varieties, etc. Besides, porting an entire OS and all of its applications to another processor type is not easy, nor cheap (if I recall, there are a lot of people working on LinuxPPC, and the alpha linux platform). It's probably not worth the development time to them.
Apple makes loads of money by selling it's proprietary hardware. If people like Mac OS X, they have to buy Apple hardware, more money for Apple. If you can have Mac OS X for x86, why would someone want to spend a fair amount more for the PPC/G4 technology when processors and hardware for AMD/Intel is much cheaper? Even a few people posting about this article say they're now considering buying Mac hardware to try out this BSD based OS. If Apple markets Mac OS X well enough, they'll increase sales in their hardware significantly.
Demonstrating some of the new capabilities found in the Public Beta of Mac OS X, Jobs explained that it takes a PowerBook anywhere from eight to 22 seconds to wake-up from sleep under Mac OS 9, depending on networking settings. Under Mac OS X Public Beta, the unit takes only one second to wake up from sleep.
:-)
"Oops it didn't work," said Jobs after the screen lit up but the PowerBook wasn't fully functional. Embarrassingly putting the PowerBook back to sleep, Jobs tried again.
"Something's going wrong here, [but] when it works, it actually wakes up in about one second," said Jobs.
Reminds me of the presentation that Microsoft did awhile back. Anyway, I don't know (provided I had a powermac) if I'd want to use this new Mac OS X public beta
Ok, this looks like something worthwhile to try. Though I have a few questions. First, does anything it use run as root? It opens TCP port 1062 (accessible by normal users), but perhaps it needs root access to some other root-only system files (this would be my guess).
Also, does this sort of program work well with Portsentry? Also, it'd be nice if this FreeVeracity client program acted in a similar fashion to LogCheck by checking the syslog-generated files. Then you could use one program to monitor critical file changes, illegal port scans, attempted hack-ins, everything in one bag. Perhaps FreeVeracity provides more functionality than I'm assuming though. I'd like to hear what anyone has to say.
Interesting that the DVDCCA is bashing open source (ok, they make some very negative deragatory comments about "open source" which seemed to mock it.), when they use it. I did an HTTP request to dvdcca.org, and they apparently use Apache 1.3.3 on Unix. Try it yourself, if you'd like. Funny, considering the hypocrisy post earlier today.
It should be operational in about 2 years. Why not use distributed computing (like SETI) to handle processing the data from this thing? It would be very cool to get data blocks from such a state-of-the-art device. Granted, it isn't looking for little green men, but I'm sure they have a fair amount of data processing to handle.
"Geeks in Space: Kursk Destroyed By Cavitation Missles"
The Kursk wasn't really destroyed, right? It was just sunk to the bottom of the Barents Sea.
Isn's GNU/Linux for Dummies an oxy-moron?
Seriously though, the attraction to Linux is of the technical-minded. I still don't see too many advantages for the regular user (except for perhaps internet appliances powered by Linux).
That's pretty simple. Not too many computers are shipped with firewire pre-installed. Not only that, there are fewer devices for it (still more high speed SCSI devices). I like firewire, but in working with hundreds of new and used computers at work and school, I haven't encountered much firewire - it's just not popular. USB is built onto most ATX motherboards now, and has cross-platform support.
When I first read about USB (wow, I don't even remember when exactly, before it became mainstream), I looked at its speed capability and I thought that was a stupid mistake. Here you have a standard that allows for hot-swappable devices connected in long chains all taking up just one set of resources. Since USB came out I was hoping that the faster standard (or pseudo-standard, it's not really that popular) firewire would take off because of speed.
:-).
Now it would seem that they're improving the USB standard so it fixes the largest negative against it - speed. Before this external hard drives and even CD-ROM drives weren't practical. I mean, it beat serial speeds by far, but it didn't even come close to Ultra-wide SCSI (my favored external interface...and internal too if the hard drives weren't so expensive
It's just too bad that now the current USB implementation is everywhere, and it'll take awhile to move to this new standard. Oh well, can't have everything.
telnet guard /usr/bin/pistol
./fire
cd
make bullet
Is another Mac-like cycle of game development. Game comes out for Windows, everyone buys it. 6 months to 2 years later they release it for Mac/Linux/FreeBSD, and most who wanted it already had it.
I just can't see serious demand for FreeBSD games if they are released so much later than the Windows counterparts. Then when we find out that Linux software games have light sales it won't help the cause to create Linux/BSD versions of these games at the same time as the Windows version. I wish Loki good luck at selling their FreeBSD games.
...and help reclaim some of the server market from NT/2k(a NOS that thinks it's a workstation)
BR>No no, you've got it all wrong. NT/2k is a workstation that thinks it's a network operating system.
Meta Group Inc. analyst Peter Firstbrook goes so far as to say that "Linux should be shunned. It should not be a part of the business process." Firstbrook objects to the very feature that most tout as Linux's number one asset--the fact that anyone can tweak the code--because it creates a situation in which an IT staffer may make changes that no one else knows about, and that probably go undocumented.
Firstbrook also takes issue with Linux's most famous feature--the fact that it is free. "Our analysis says that the cost of the operating system is only 3 percent of the total cost of ownership of the server," he says. Labor is a far more significant proportion of IT costs, and the very cost that is likely to be affected if employees spend time tinkering with Linux.
"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor," he says. "Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous," he says
While I can't say for certain, I'd venture to say that Peter Firstbrook hasn't really used Linux. I must agree that for a large company the actually operating system cost is small, and that is not a good reason to pick Linux over others (unless you're a smaller company where software is prohibitively expensive, or an individual setting up a system on DSL or cable).
However, without the cost factor, Linux still has plenty going for it. From my experience, it's quite stable (not perfect, but it definately beats NT from my observations, and I've seen many a NT server as well as a variety of different Linux boxes). The ability to tweak code is just that, an ability. If you don't want employees doing that, then make a policy against it, though IMO that's dumb. Better to have the choice to use source than not. The greater benefit comes from the large amounts of bug fixes and security holes discovered and patched because the software is open-source. So IT people can keep up with updates to keep the computers more secure and reliable (as opposed to waiting for bug fixes from Microsoft in the latest service pack).
I seriously beg to differ with using Linux for the "cool" factor. Individuals perhaps (hey, I use Linux and home and work 'cause I like it), but companies don't pick an OS because they think it's cool. It has to offer advantages over the competition. Linux does, in the form of price, scalability, stability, and the benefits of open-source software (among many others, depending on use). I'll be the first to tell you that Linux doesn't work for every company, or for every purpose. If your web developers want ASP scripts and other NT-proprietary technology, then NT is the way to go, using Linux isn't practical.
Anyway, back to my point (I guess I have to make one up now). Don't tell people to shun an operating system because it provides more freedom than others. Linux is a valid choice as much as NT or any flavor of UNIX.
Let's not forget that the communities (KDE or Gnome) do not need to bother with spying. Both are open-source, so they just look at the code and have more than they could want, and still legally use it. Granted, I doubt that either side would want to do that much, considering the different library bases. The holy wars are mainly among the users, not the developers, they're too busy :-).
What if I don't want to use RPMs? I mean, I love them personally, and use them because I'm lazy for installing upgrades and such of certain programs (Gaim comes to mind). What if I didn't have root access on a computer I wanted to use it on?
Ah well, I guess I'll have to agree that I'll be sticking with Gaim on this one, I haven't found a piece of AOL software that's been stable (AOLpress, AOL IM, AOL 3.0-5.0) so I find it hard to believe that this will be (even in production)
Can anyone explain exactly why "Linux" was always highlighted in blue? I thought most buzzwords were clear enough without making them a different color.
Please note that I am a strong fan of Linux and run it as my main operating system, but I don't think it needs distinction among other words in a sentence.
If any of these projects actually produce a product that has a chance of switching current Windows users, how long do you think it would take for Microsoft to sue? I have strong doubts about it even being feasible though, considering many Windows standards are closed-source. Would reverse-compiling be involved to get needed info? If so, that is more than enough grounds for a winning lawsuit.
Ya know, at first this struck me as a great little device. Then I realized it was a huge waste of money. For $500 you could build a relatively nice system to dedicate to the Seti purpose (approx. prices - case: $40, motherboard: 100, ethernet card: $20, processor: what $340 can buy at the moment) and you have all the parts needed to keep a Seti machine running (granted, you need to borrow some parts for setup).
In addition, you could use the computer for other fun things (personal server, etc) or turn it into a regular computer within reasonable cost. This processor card is unadaptable (at least without some serious hacking). If the card was made to be programmable, then people may find all sorts of interesting uses for it (such as other distributed projects).
Anyway, even if you don't want another computer, but had $500 to spend...I would consider getting a dual-processor motherboard with another processor (depending on speed)...though I'm not sure Seti@Home can support multiple processors, is it a multi-threaded program?
I just don't think the thing is worth even the most devout Seti fan's money, as cool as it may look in one's computer =)
I couldn't agree more. I run Linux as my main platform, and have a choice between Netscape 4.x (I think I use 4.61 at home), the latest milestone of Mozilla (I've tried that), and a beta version of Konqueror (from KDE 2.0, haven't tried it), and lynx (had to include it =). Basically Netscape 4.x is the most complete (if most bloated) option of all of these. I've been using 4.x for a long, long time, hoping that they would release something more stable. As it stands Netscape is probably the least stable program on my Linux box. I tried Mozilla a few weeks ago and it worked ok...but not any better than Netscape, they both have their quirks.
I'd jump at downloading an improved/faster/more stable web browser (even if it only has one of those three things going for it) to replace 4.x. There just isn't anything out there yet. I'm afraid to say that I'd probably find myself switching to IE if they offered it for Linux (even though I've been using Netscape since version 2), because I've actually had pretty good experience with the latest versions of IE.
I can't really complain though, these browsers are all free, and the product of many people's time, much of it being volunteer. I just hope that in the next 6 months or so I'll be able to switch to something new and better (I'm thinking Konqueror looks nice...I'm a KDE fan). I fear there are other people like me who use Windows instead and have switched to IE because Netscape hasn't been improving..that may explain the increased market share.
What I meant by "everyone" was both Scour and the studios representing the MPAA. These studios want to make money, not pay their lawyers more than they have to - because that's a business expense. The same with Scour, they'd obviously prefer this lawsuit wasn't taking place, it's going to take a lot of money off of a startup that would otherwise be spending that money improving their service.
The best the MPAA can hope for is a shutdown of Scour's linking service. They probably won't be able to recoup much legal fees (provided they win), so I think they'll probably lose money on this lawsuit because of the legal fees.
The article states that Scour willingly removes the links of any copyright owner who requests that such a link be removed to their material. Also, Scour has made a few movie trailer/promotion deals with studios on their web site. This same studios (such as Hollywood) are now plaintiffs in this lawsuit!
The studios were apparently thinking about working with Scour for content, but instead have slammed them with a lawsuit through the MPAA. This is the wrong move, following the lead of the RIAA and Napster - it's not the way to make money. The studios want money, and few people have the bandwidth to download such movies right now - so these studios aren't losing money. IMO, it's far better from a business-stance to make deals and do movie promotions with a company like Scour - that could actually lead to some revenue. These lawsuits just lose money for everyone in legal fees.
From the looks of it, they've actually made this particular new version of Palm worse than the previous ones. Technology has a trend of making things better, but making them cheaper at the same time. This new Palm only follows the second rule. The screen is 25% smaller (and this article markets it as if it's a feature), and the thing runs on Alkalines - it's back to the Palm III!
Personally, I'd rather have a Palm Palm V when they reduce the price (or discontinue and find them clearanced) down to $150. That way I can have my pretty nice-looking screen (after you install the hack to make the backlight look normal instead of reversed as by default), built-in lithium ion batteries (incredibly preferable over alkaline or do-it-yourself NiMH), and a convenient dock. The changable plastic pieces don't do anything for me, I kinda like the silver Palm V myself (why don't they just offer different colors but not make them changable? Everyone loses those things anyway).
Anyway, I hope the generation after this one provides an improvement over what we already have.
I for one, have been using computers since _before_ around preschool. In Kindergarden I played with a Commadore 64 with some math and English programs. The same went for 1st and 2nd grade. Computers weren't part of the teaching curriculum, we actually didn't use them all that much (there were two available). However, we were given the choice of how to spend our free time, and I remember after having my spelling done in 1st grade going over to see if I could beat the latest high score in a fast-paced basic math quiz (I got really good at adding/multiplying numbers).
I wholeheartedly agree that computers are not the perfect teaching tool for young students. However, I do like the concept of having a few computers available when the students are allowed to choose their activities (reading, recess, a video, etc.). In 1st and 2nd grade we produced a newspaper a few times a week. The year I left they moved from a copied handwritten (completely by the students) to a typed out version. Such an activity helps cooperation (it was a class-wide effort), English skills, and how to use computers to produce something useful. I got a few copies of the newspaper after I left, and it's quite impressive.
In conclusion, computers have their place in younger education. They should not be used for mass teaching, but rather for independant exploration, or as a research tool in the library.
The X-box (provided it's ever released close to what they're claiming it will have now) is basically standard PC hardware. A rule of standard PC hardware is that it decreases in price incredibly quickly over short periods of time, even more than proprietary technology (such as those proprietary chipsets and such used by other consoles).
If the X-box is released in 18 months, it could be set below the cost of the hardware, if the price only goes down gradually (such as that seen by other consoles) the cost of producing the machines will decrease dramatically. So the longer the X-box remains on the market, the more money it makes on each box, even compared to the lifetimes of other consoles.
And about upgrades, I can't imagine MS creating a product without the need for a few software patches after it comes out to fix bugs (and create new ones). We'll see what happens.
I did a little searching (ok, very little) about the merger, and found this interesting article from Yahoo.
Apparently AT&T agreed to drop it's opposition to the merger between US West and Quest in exchange for the two companies dropping their request to AT&T's cable systems.