Depends on what the application, like Firefox, has 'rights' to access. If someone creates a worm that exploits a bug in Firefox's bookmarks...so it can delete them...well, that is one thing.
But if a worm exploits Firefox to change system libraries, but Firefox has no rights to change system libraries...then that is another.
Re:they will have two consoles selling at huge los
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
I too purchased Halo2 for full price. I kind of regret doing that though. My friends really wanted to play multiplayer...so I bought in. It was fun a few times, but overall the game is lackluster. I'm kind of surprised that there is such a flurry of people who worship Halo2 multiplayer. But oh well.:-)
We'll see how the Xbox360 release goes, as they have a lot of hurdles to jump over to have market success with that system. That, of course, doesn't mean they will make any money.
I was thinking about selling my Xbox actually. I've noticed that the kinds of games that I enjoy the most are always available on the PS2, and rarely on the Xbox. *sigh* Perhaps I just needed to make a more informed choice in the first place.
they will have two consoles selling at huge losses
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's Home Entertainment Division runs at a
loss...a HUGE fricken loss...and have for years. They have never made
a penny on Xbox, and they likely won't on Xbox360 either...especially
at the US $299 price point, although that is a great price for early
adopters of the 360.
So, numbers...in 2004 the Microsoft Entertainment Division lost $1.2
BILLION. As of July 2005, they have lost $391 MILLION this year so
far. I can try to get losses since the launch of Xbox...but I think
you get the point.
As of June 2005, the total units sold of the top 3 game consoles
worldwide were:
PS2 - 91 million (69.1%)
Xbox - 21.9 million (16.6%)
GameCube - 18.76 million (14.3%)
Also...the grand majority of Microsoft worldwide sales of Xbox are in
the U.S. (like ~14.5 million units). The worldwide interest in
Xbox360 is very very small too. Microsoft is stroking themselves in
claiming they'll get > 50% marketshare for next-gen consoles. It just
simply is not realistic after looking at the history of consoles.
So, is this pipe-dream of capturing the market worth the massive losses they are taking for it? Personally I think that most people should wait on their purchases. See what the price point of all three offerings are later in 2006...then buy. I'm betting on the PS3.
I doubt that. The fact of the matter is that the hardware to produce the sound that you get in an iPod is top notch. If more than half-assed quality is important to you...then nothing else but the iPod hits the mark right now.
Sure everyone else can build a cheaper device...but you can tell that it is cheap by the sound quality, compared with the iPod.
I think that a lot of people have forgotten that Intel didn't really have a plan to get anywhere. Shrinking the process doesn't buy you the world, and that was all they were doing.
Intel has ditched their own 64-bit platform in favor of AMD's, they have essentially reached many material limits in their process, they backpedaled to the PIII for the current Celeron and Pentium M designs, and their fake-dual-core designs are pretty lackluster also.
Apple has problems with IBM advancing the PowerPC and producing enough of them to give Apple a very good image in the processing power area. Sure...the PowerPC might have a lot more room to grow (and other such arguments), but if you can't get them fast enough for demand...you have a problem. And with Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony looking to the 970 and the Cell for their new consoles...supply wasn't looking better for Apple.
Intel is gaining new life with dual and quad-core designs that Apple has property rights over. Intel is also getting new VPU designs. Lo and behold they have already announced new processors with some of these design changes in them, and I bet Apple will use them in their new machines.
Apple get a product line that doesn't have the shortcoming concerning clock-speed envy. They get Intels successful marketing. And Apple gets a company that can meet processor supply demands. In addition Apple has a very smooth transition plan with fat-binaries for new applications, and Rosetta to run old binaries on the new systems.
They have obviously had this on the back burner for a long time. I personally think this is win-win for both Intel and Apple.
And additionally for us consumers and professionals, we may get a slightly cheaper machine...but will definitely get lower cost items like video cards, controllers, etc. that don't have to have special firmware for PowerPC platform.
When are you people going to stop chanting the inaccurate 'popularity' mantra? Windows' insecurity and number of viruses/worms/adware/spyware/etc that target it are because of how tremendously susceptible it is to having such things created and implemented against it. Read the bulletings from SecurityFocus and CERT...you will find quickly that those insecurities in Windows are often caused by improper implementations of their own technologies. Making a claim that it is all about how many people use a specific operating system that makes an OS a target is unfounded. It is the insecurity of the system in the first place that taunts the virus writers...a large user base is just the bonus.
To be certain the environmental movement is a bit conflicted, and much does seem tempermental.
But concerning centralization and efficiencies of scale...of course the context matters. If you have a 'fuel' that powers 10'000 automobiles that creates 300ppm sulfur pollution, but then we retrofit all those autos with clean fuel cells. However the plan to make the 'clean fuel' cells causes 5'000'000ppm of sulfur pollution in the same time-scale.
So...the pollution isn't 'spread out' where those autos are driven, but the overall pollution is now worse than it was before.
So, context and approach to the problem do matter. The overall results need to be looked at, as well as some redistribution of pollution that just needs to be rejected as a solution off the cuff.
I've 'updated' or 'upgraded' Firefox many times, and have always had issues doing that, such as seeming instability.
When I've uninstalled or removed Firefox first, then installed fresh, I've had VERY FEW issues. Great browser.
It isn't the storage!
on
The Webmail Wars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Someone else must have mentioned this also, but having not seen it in the first couple pages of replies...I'll say it again.
It ISN'T the storage amount that makes Gmail great. It is the method that Gmail does web-mail in the first place.
Gmail takes the hit off the server and puts most of the process of rendering pages on the browser itself. Their use of Javascript is brilliant. Something they likely learned from Mozilla.
Who cares if Hotmail adds 98MB more storage...their rendering time will still suck. Same with Yahoo and the others.
I was making a comment about what the platforms excel at. I started editing video and doing multitrack recording on Windows. But the Mac does it much more easily and the workflow is MUCH more intuitive. You can certainly edit video/audio on both platforms, if you wish...I didn't mean to claim that you couldn't. I do, however, believe that your experience and productivity in audio/video is better on Mac.
Every platform can do word processing, spreadsheets, databases, presentations, e-mail, web, yadda yadda.
But there are a lot of media/audio/video and research abilities that the Mac platform has that are seriously waning on Windows.
People keep comparing clock speeds as if that is the only thing in question. Or keep making claims about cost of hardware being more on the Mac side. Ridiculous. If you spec out things equally (which is possible if you study it a little) you'll find quickly that Macs are in many cases cheaper than Windows machines for what hardware/software you get in the deal.
BUT...perhaps that isn't why you bought a computer...right? Perhaps you just wanted a very familiar interface with a modem, and a web-browse (for web and web-mail)? At that point the super-cheap-and-nasty Windows machine from Wal-mart is going to meet your needs. But you aren't going to be playing games like HL2 or Doom3 on that machine without severe frustration.
But Windows excels at playing games as a platform. It is one of the only things that it is really pretty good at. And benchmark for benchmark in gaming specifically...though games run pretty well on the Mac...you just can't match the relatively inexpensive value of Windows (vs. Mac) with gaming.
On a Windows machine you have access to all the latest-greatest hardware choices in processor/mainboard and latest-greatest video-card choices also. For around $1500 you can have a latest-greatest machine (no-monitor) with nearly the best of everything for gaming. Macs can't currently touch that price.
But gaming isn't the benchmark for being able to accomplish every task. And people shouldn't try to make it so.
Yes...there being no paper trail on most of these systems, or the demonstrated ease of having their database cracked...it's all just user error. Of course!
Obviously A. Russell Jones is unfamiliar with the review process that happens in most open-source development. It is ridiculous to believe that malicious code would just make its way into an open-source application.
Really what it seems like he is trying to do is demonize open-source developers...suggesting that it is likely that the group governing an open-source project would deliberately infect their own apps.
I can see the Apache Group chuckling at his assertions.
I think that their point, as with other apps and hardware, is to refine the usability of the application (which they did), and bring the price-point down (which at $49, that is amazing!).
I don't know that I'm truly suggesting that there is no such thing as caffeine addiction. I just think that it is likely that the majority of people who claim caffeine addiction from sodas, or from coffee WITH sugary treats, may actually just be sugar addicted.
It is only a possibility. But I think that it is curious how many people are convinced that they are caffeine addicted. Perhaps their mind is just playing tricks on them?
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on what the application, like Firefox, has 'rights' to access. If someone creates a worm that exploits a bug in Firefox's bookmarks...so it can delete them...well, that is one thing.
But if a worm exploits Firefox to change system libraries, but Firefox has no rights to change system libraries...then that is another.
I too purchased Halo2 for full price. I kind of regret doing that though. My friends really wanted to play multiplayer...so I bought in. It was fun a few times, but overall the game is lackluster. I'm kind of surprised that there is such a flurry of people who worship Halo2 multiplayer. But oh well. :-)
We'll see how the Xbox360 release goes, as they have a lot of hurdles to jump over to have market success with that system. That, of course, doesn't mean they will make any money.
I was thinking about selling my Xbox actually. I've noticed that the kinds of games that I enjoy the most are always available on the PS2, and rarely on the Xbox. *sigh* Perhaps I just needed to make a more informed choice in the first place.
Microsoft's Home Entertainment Division runs at a loss...a HUGE fricken loss...and have for years. They have never made a penny on Xbox, and they likely won't on Xbox360 either...especially at the US $299 price point, although that is a great price for early adopters of the 360.
So, numbers...in 2004 the Microsoft Entertainment Division lost $1.2 BILLION. As of July 2005, they have lost $391 MILLION this year so far. I can try to get losses since the launch of Xbox...but I think you get the point.
As of June 2005, the total units sold of the top 3 game consoles worldwide were:
Also...the grand majority of Microsoft worldwide sales of Xbox are in the U.S. (like ~14.5 million units). The worldwide interest in Xbox360 is very very small too. Microsoft is stroking themselves in claiming they'll get > 50% marketshare for next-gen consoles. It just simply is not realistic after looking at the history of consoles.
So, is this pipe-dream of capturing the market worth the massive losses they are taking for it? Personally I think that most people should wait on their purchases. See what the price point of all three offerings are later in 2006...then buy. I'm betting on the PS3.
I doubt that. The fact of the matter is that the hardware to produce the sound that you get in an iPod is top notch. If more than half-assed quality is important to you...then nothing else but the iPod hits the mark right now.
Sure everyone else can build a cheaper device...but you can tell that it is cheap by the sound quality, compared with the iPod.
I think that a lot of people have forgotten that Intel didn't really have a plan to get anywhere. Shrinking the process doesn't buy you the world, and that was all they were doing.
Intel has ditched their own 64-bit platform in favor of AMD's, they have essentially reached many material limits in their process, they backpedaled to the PIII for the current Celeron and Pentium M designs, and their fake-dual-core designs are pretty lackluster also.
Apple has problems with IBM advancing the PowerPC and producing enough of them to give Apple a very good image in the processing power area. Sure...the PowerPC might have a lot more room to grow (and other such arguments), but if you can't get them fast enough for demand...you have a problem. And with Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony looking to the 970 and the Cell for their new consoles...supply wasn't looking better for Apple.
Intel is gaining new life with dual and quad-core designs that Apple has property rights over. Intel is also getting new VPU designs. Lo and behold they have already announced new processors with some of these design changes in them, and I bet Apple will use them in their new machines.
Apple get a product line that doesn't have the shortcoming concerning clock-speed envy. They get Intels successful marketing. And Apple gets a company that can meet processor supply demands. In addition Apple has a very smooth transition plan with fat-binaries for new applications, and Rosetta to run old binaries on the new systems.
They have obviously had this on the back burner for a long time. I personally think this is win-win for both Intel and Apple.
And additionally for us consumers and professionals, we may get a slightly cheaper machine...but will definitely get lower cost items like video cards, controllers, etc. that don't have to have special firmware for PowerPC platform.
When are you people going to stop chanting the inaccurate 'popularity' mantra? Windows' insecurity and number of viruses/worms/adware/spyware/etc that target it are because of how tremendously susceptible it is to having such things created and implemented against it. Read the bulletings from SecurityFocus and CERT...you will find quickly that those insecurities in Windows are often caused by improper implementations of their own technologies. Making a claim that it is all about how many people use a specific operating system that makes an OS a target is unfounded. It is the insecurity of the system in the first place that taunts the virus writers...a large user base is just the bonus.
To be certain the environmental movement is a bit conflicted, and much does seem tempermental.
But concerning centralization and efficiencies of scale...of course the context matters. If you have a 'fuel' that powers 10'000 automobiles that creates 300ppm sulfur pollution, but then we retrofit all those autos with clean fuel cells. However the plan to make the 'clean fuel' cells causes 5'000'000ppm of sulfur pollution in the same time-scale.
So...the pollution isn't 'spread out' where those autos are driven, but the overall pollution is now worse than it was before.
So, context and approach to the problem do matter. The overall results need to be looked at, as well as some redistribution of pollution that just needs to be rejected as a solution off the cuff.
It would be nice if the MPEG4 video he has on his site were actually MPEG4 files. They are some crazy AVI encapsulated video format.
What, like .exe worms and malware for novice users to open and infect their system with?
(just looking for first hand accounts...not friends of friends)
If people have actually pulled the plug on the Internet...then how are they going to read your question?
I've 'updated' or 'upgraded' Firefox many times, and have always had issues doing that, such as seeming instability.
When I've uninstalled or removed Firefox first, then installed fresh, I've had VERY FEW issues. Great browser.
Someone else must have mentioned this also, but having not seen it in the first couple pages of replies...I'll say it again.
It ISN'T the storage amount that makes Gmail great. It is the method that Gmail does web-mail in the first place.
Gmail takes the hit off the server and puts most of the process of rendering pages on the browser itself. Their use of Javascript is brilliant. Something they likely learned from Mozilla.
Who cares if Hotmail adds 98MB more storage...their rendering time will still suck. Same with Yahoo and the others.
I was making a comment about what the platforms excel at. I started editing video and doing multitrack recording on Windows. But the Mac does it much more easily and the workflow is MUCH more intuitive. You can certainly edit video/audio on both platforms, if you wish...I didn't mean to claim that you couldn't. I do, however, believe that your experience and productivity in audio/video is better on Mac.
Every platform can do word processing, spreadsheets, databases, presentations, e-mail, web, yadda yadda.
But there are a lot of media/audio/video and research abilities that the Mac platform has that are seriously waning on Windows.
People keep comparing clock speeds as if that is the only thing in question. Or keep making claims about cost of hardware being more on the Mac side. Ridiculous. If you spec out things equally (which is possible if you study it a little) you'll find quickly that Macs are in many cases cheaper than Windows machines for what hardware/software you get in the deal.
BUT...perhaps that isn't why you bought a computer...right? Perhaps you just wanted a very familiar interface with a modem, and a web-browse (for web and web-mail)? At that point the super-cheap-and-nasty Windows machine from Wal-mart is going to meet your needs. But you aren't going to be playing games like HL2 or Doom3 on that machine without severe frustration.
But Windows excels at playing games as a platform. It is one of the only things that it is really pretty good at. And benchmark for benchmark in gaming specifically...though games run pretty well on the Mac...you just can't match the relatively inexpensive value of Windows (vs. Mac) with gaming.
On a Windows machine you have access to all the latest-greatest hardware choices in processor/mainboard and latest-greatest video-card choices also. For around $1500 you can have a latest-greatest machine (no-monitor) with nearly the best of everything for gaming. Macs can't currently touch that price.
But gaming isn't the benchmark for being able to accomplish every task. And people shouldn't try to make it so.
I am Jobs of Borg. Resistance is futile.
Yes...there being no paper trail on most of these systems, or the demonstrated ease of having their database cracked...it's all just user error. Of course!
The UK is indeed a member state of the European Union.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/european_countries/eu_mem bers/uk/index_en.htm
Anyone know of reasons why they couldn't use the free QuickTime Darwin server from Apple? Just interested.
Obviously A. Russell Jones is unfamiliar with the review process that happens in most open-source development. It is ridiculous to believe that malicious code would just make its way into an open-source application.
Really what it seems like he is trying to do is demonize open-source developers...suggesting that it is likely that the group governing an open-source project would deliberately infect their own apps.
I can see the Apache Group chuckling at his assertions.
Whoops. I guess someone else already posted about this. I should read more before I blurt. Sorry.
This sounds a little like the robot dog from Neal Stephenson's book "Snow Crash".
True true!
I think that their point, as with other apps and hardware, is to refine the usability of the application (which they did), and bring the price-point down (which at $49, that is amazing!).
I don't know that I'm truly suggesting that there is no such thing as caffeine addiction. I just think that it is likely that the majority of people who claim caffeine addiction from sodas, or from coffee WITH sugary treats, may actually just be sugar addicted.
It is only a possibility. But I think that it is curious how many people are convinced that they are caffeine addicted. Perhaps their mind is just playing tricks on them?
I'm thinking about posting some of my sources and reading about the issue.
Would you be willing to post a link to the WTO information that you talked about?
Thank you!