Well, then so should source code for encryption be protected; but despite that, the government 'issue' against encryption seems archaic, backwards, and harmful to our own economy and society.
It seems news.com provided an review of a review... It's pretty bad that their report, news.com's, is uneven, though it highlights both strength and weakness. It doesn't explain their own reporting, much less Brown's.
Someone mentioned the pdf; is it available? You have to pay for the real report... and there's a form I just filled out for an executive summary...
I can accept their claim that for 'enterprise computing' that other unices beat it, but not that 'Windows NT holds an advantage'. Price/performance, stability, and interoperability, from hearsay all over the web, seems to be Linux's strength against NT deployments.
Linux definitely seems to lack in robust SMP, or as they say, 'non-trivial SMP scalability', except I'm not so sure that NT qualifies. Isn't NT limited to 2 or 4 processor Intel solutions, which are themselves not quite so hot for enterprise level computing? As compared to bigger Sun or Alpha solutions? Maybe someone can correct me and tell me about a distribution of NT that runs on 32 processor Intel or Alpha machines at a reasonable cost and at reasonable performace and up time?
As for journaling, high availability clustering and such, I guess that much is true or under development... But I still don't believe that they think NT satisfies their requirements for an enterprise level computing solution!
These speakers use a different vibrational technique than that of magneplanars or electrostatic speakers. The goal is still to produce massless driverless speakers, and towards that goal the NXT technology has shrunked the speaker elements towards the size of molecular clumps.
Magneplanars and electrostatics use smaller distributed drivers, and in this sense are similar to NXT's speakers, but they still use larger elements with more mass and more frequency distortion issues. However, since the technique has been done previously by Magenplanars and electrostatics, they can be drawn from...
One thing I can see as a disadvantage is that NXT speakers might not be able to deal with 3d sound other than multiple speakers arranged in an enclosing formation. Perhaps with more computational power and advanced encoding of sound, a single sheet speaker can produce phase varying sound, and multiple speakers can produce delay varying sound, for a better 3d sound experience.
Can a magneplanar speaker be used in this sense, since it is an array of many small speakers? Has anyone tried to create a simple/single 3d sound solution out of a magneplanar speaker?
For some cases I would agree wholeheartedly that programming is an art; a well designed VLSI chip, and elegant algorithmic solution, a concise and effecient snippet of code involve artistic talent and effort, as such. But I would not classify that the finished output, the program, the chip, the code, as art.
The intention of art is not in its application, whereas in computer code the application is inherent in the design and implementation, and thus engineering. A painting, like code, is commissioned and paid for, but the value of a painting is the painting itself, whereas the code in of itself does not have any value except perhaps in aesthetic appreciation by fellow programmers.
There are some disciplines in which the boundary is shady, like architecture or aircraft or consumer appliances, in which the appearance plays as fundamental role as the application. Code however doesn't seem to fall under this umbrella.
Perhaps if you were to distribute and send encryption or security code as a tribute and example of excellent code, it would pass under free speech, but working and real code would rarely qualify I think.
Reading through the article, it sounds like their Evanescent Coupling technique is a direct application of quantum tunneling, though the term and effect is more often discussed with electrons and discontinuous barriers, ie electrons tunneling through a barrier. Perhaps I don't have this right, any physics majors willing to correct me?
It would seem even without the increase in areal density observed, the techniques involved with flying heads and SIL/Evanescent Coupling would revolutionize removeable media, allowing the speed lower latency of current Winchester media and the durability and reliability of MO media.
I'm not sure myself why crescent shaped domains would aide and increase the areal density; is there some sort of implied overlap between data regions? Is it just a function of tighter packing? Or just smaller domains because of SIL and tighter laser focus/embedded magnetic coils in the flying head?
Why wouldn't this be applicable to current magnetic hard drives then? Because magnetic forces cannot be shaped or focused in a way that optical beams can?
This is new stuff, but you are right in saying it's an old form...
Not only is it flat, it's thin; the company who designed and owns the patent is working on making a thin acrylic or plastic sheet an active speaker device, and thus make LCD screens in notebooks or even a sheet layered upon a conventional CRT active speaker elements.
The concept is much different than traditional flat speakers, and an issue with these speakers is the loss of the 'sweet spot' traditionally seen in directional speakers. These flat speakers project sound in a flat plane, and the interaction of the two speakers will not produce a cone of good sound quality, but rather a uniform zone of sound that should not change as one moves around in it. This doesn't bar reflective or destructive interference and interaction between the sound source, walls, and other obstructions, of course.
Succinctly, these speakers work by setting up vibrational modes across the surface of a sheet of plastic material, forcing the entire sheet to act as a speaker. They have effectively enabled each atom and molecule on the surface of a sheet to act as a driver unit, as opposed to a coil behind a cone. This design also removes the frequency limitations that were traditionaly dealt with by having a tweeter, midrange, and bass, though a bass unit is provided for more volume and kick, I believe.
Because there is no directionality or frequency distributed speakers, I almost think that the technology is inherently incompatible with 3d sound algorithms, though it is still possible to create 3d sound by being surrounded by these speakers and sending different signals to each speaker. It would be equivalent to trying to create a true 3d image out of a 2d surface like a CRT of LCD.
I don't think source code is any more a form of speech than a recipe for a cake, a set of instructions to make a bomb, or a to-do list to get one through a day.
That being said, I also don't think the government is in the right to restrict the dissemination of source as pertaining to encryption, which seems to be the issue that incited this case.
I don't think the government would restrict or care to restrict anyone from posting source or code on how to compress data, filter images, sort lists, etc. The government specifically thinks that encryption is some sort of weapon, and one that should not be allowed outside our borders, much like techniques to purify uranium or to increase the efficiacy of a fusion/fission thermonuclear device.
Similarly, it would seem that, in a hypothetical case, they would limit the ability of encryption and security experts to travel, again for national security reasons.
The argument that source code is a form of speech and protected as such is an appeal to the dissemination of ideas and thought as a universal right, and that telling/showing someone how to encrypt data securely is perhaps akin to telling/showing someone how to keep their houses secured. I'm not sure that the government would make such an issue if it were an abstract, publication, or essay, with source fragments and descriptive passages, describing encryption and security.
However I also feel that even if that were the case, an issue of detail and intent, I believe that the government is only hurting our country and our electronic future by being so protectionist about security and encryption. I can understand if it were an issue on thermonuclear warheads, as the device and its usages are all destructive and damaging, but not if it were information about the safe handling, usage, and construction of nuclear powerplants.
In the same way I don't see that encryption and related issues can be treated as weapons, but as tools. If this were source on viruses and ilk, it would be a much nastier issue, but security and encryption as such, while applicable to non-friendly or dangerous intent, is in of itself not something that is a threat to the security of the US. Financial transactions, industrial communication, even governmental transactions all benefit from a wider dissemination of encryption and security. It would be a case of protection from hostile intent, rather than attack from hostile parties, that security and encryption seems to deal with.
Perhaps there is a use for Intel's SSE, for the average consumer.
Speed ups of MP3 encoding. That should very nicely accelerate the acceptance, growth, and potential of the music format.
However, the point the article made is very good.
Better sound quality is necessary, but I think the fault currently lies in poor/bad encoder implementations in which short cuts and 1/2 degree approximations are used, and a better faster encoder would help immensely. Perhaps even better source data would help too, but we can't actually do much as CDs don't come at 56kHz 32bit sound quality or something...
An alternative to the RIAA would be necessary for the industries involved to embrace such an open and free standard.
I would think, perhaps, that a customizeable CD service might flourish. Download 96kbps songs, which would be acknowledge as lower quality, with 196kbps samples to emphasize the difference, for users to preview, keep, and enjoy.
The same site would also offer the ability to pick and choose any of their songs to be encoded on a CD, at 196kbps, with customizeable source art. Another possibility perhaps is a dual mode CD; one track would contain the mp3s and another the data in CDA format, to be useable in CD players and in PCs. Perhaps they could even offer this on a DVD to utilize 256kpbs quality mp3s, CDA music, and 2 'free' songs in both formats to encourage you to try alternative songs...
So this moderation system really seems to work. If there were another post by CmdrTaco about moderation, I would post it there, instead...
Now that my words actually have value, I find myself carefully reviewing, reading other arguments, and then posting a calculated post...
I also see something quite amusing here.
Anyone read Ender's Game? More specifcally, the sequal, in which Val and Peter Wiggins assume carefully crafted personas on the worldwide network, and through careful usage of word and opinion, gain rank, respect, fame, and influence?
I'd take the Peter Wiggins role, which I believe was called Locke, if anyone else wants to play Valentine's Demosthenes? As in the story, the game would involve getting higher and higher post values, carefully creating consistent personas, trawling the web not only for current info and viewpoints to manipulate and take advantage of, but also to post to/. and to know what to expect to appear at/.
I have no plans or expectations for a hegemony or world conquest, as Peter did, but only to have fun, and see how cool it would be. Of course it would require people to take new personas, accounts, and names.
They can't yet lay down a layer of these things into the track/sheets needed for a disk plater, for one thing. They had to do so individually, best I could tell, when what they want is to, perhaps, apply some sort of magneto-electric field, spray a mist of these magets embedded in a gel, and as the magnets settle towards the surface of the platter they'd align and space themsevles according to the field, and then as the gel/platter is heated the fields become erased and the surface solid and fixed for future use.
Then the problem of actually reading/writing to the disk.
The suggestion of a massively parallel fixed read arm would still have the problem of many 'wires' of the same size as the magnets, which might not be feasible.
If a motorized arm is used, we'd need something more precise and accurate than currently possible. Perhaps piezo-electric seek heads, grown within specifications, used to move the arm back and forth. As opposed to coils or something.
If I make no sense, please ignore, but I think those are some of the biggest hurdles to deal with.
For it's part, I think M$ is misusing the term, but in reality, I also think everyone is mis-interpreting M$'s speculation.
If I recall correctly, M$ is considering releasing it's source to valuable customers, sort of a good will gesture and as a service. Home users don't quite qualify as valuable customers, yet. It's main use would not be the improvement of their OS, per se, but of a total quality cycle in which developers and massive deployments can rely on the source and being able to either debug, or at least accurately report to M$, a problem.
They are considering opening the source to their valuable customers, and not making their product Open Source(TM), IIRC.
As a business move, it's no different than an independent software house providing source alongside with binaries when doing proprietary stuff.
It would also, on M$ part, tie the relationship closer to it's customers, for good and for bad.
It might also lead to some really good improvements in the future of the Win OSes if large organizations such as SGI, IBM, HP, Dell, Compaq, etc., were able to examine the source, offer improvements, extensions, and patches, without M$ spending much on it, and these companies will get the ability to differentiate their products.
SGI would be able to extend and expand their Visual PC, for example... And still maintains some level of compatibility with the Win32API, if for example M$ rules that the APIs stay fixed and only the implementations can be free, sort of the way that OpenGL is currently, with the API well defined, each vendor responsible for designing and releasing an ICD/MCD, and also with each vendor being able to release and offer extensions using the OpenGL extensions capability.
It may mean that a valuable customer is someone to whom M$ has been paid to see the source, like a down payment or lease or deposit to ensure that the source isn't leaked.
"May you live in interesting times" -random Chinese proverb, probably Confucian =)
So Apple set a trend and benchmark; consumers are at least as fashion conscious as power conscious. iMac flavors, design, and cuteness sells.
Why not? Notice the VW neoBeetle, for example!
However, I note several problems and have several thoughts.
A lot of people bash the iMac for cost, noting quite accurately that one could build a similarly powered system for half the price, without realizing that one would need to be knowledgable enought to build and maintain said computer. Call it a stupidity tax if you want, but that cost can be justified by the simpleness and attempt at being plug and play.
It's not as if a comparable Dell or Gateway costs $600 dollars right now. Is it me? With 6GB HD, 32MB memory, 32x CDROM(and floppy of course), and 15" monitor, the price is (gasp!) $1,018, not that far off from the iMac's $1,199 price, plus the fact you get to chose a color.
My guess is if Dell goes for the future consumer PC with larger monitor and such, Apple will beat it to the punch(12-18 months? Why so long for a PC maker the size of Dell?), with faster processors, better video cards, and larger monitors.
In a year I'd expect Apple's iMac to come with a nice quality 17" monitor, at least a 450MHz CPU, 64mb of memory, an ATI Rage Fury 32mb adaptor(about the same as a current TNT, not the Fury Pro), at least 6GB of HD space, perhaps ISDN or whatever revolutionary internet connectivity standard is hot, and separate speakers with 3d sound capability.
Assuming Apple doesn't make another blunder somewhere.
The PC market is still not offering anything cheaper than an iMac with it's functionality, performance, or style.
You can build your own, but that isn't the point.
Dell probably isn't the only one, just the first/only one to publicly announce it.
I also think that Apple's future device will drop below $1,000 dollars, and if bundled with MacOSX, will beat hands down Windows98, assuming it has all the standard features that Win98 and MacOS8.6 currently has. Windows will be on SR2 or whatever, with Win2k being to big and bloated for home use, and Win2k Personal won't be available yet.
Some really great beginning statements, but sorta sounded like you changed minds 2/3 of the way through...
They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it.
I would just like to continue the argument by sayin *do not* underestimate IBM. Their AIM alliance produced the PowerPC to good effect for them, even if they haven't used it to penetrate the home/desktop PC.
Likewise this strategy, while not apparently a Great Thing, could still have very much a use for IBM.
Anyway, IBM pushes a lot of new technology and capability that Linux just doesn't have the support for. Yet, as always. Eventually perhaps, and perhaps with some help from IBM, but for really huge enterprise level deployments, IBM needs something it can really depend on and can market for it's dependability. Something with their name on it, and not just for legal litigation purposes. They will be supporting things like hundreds of processors in a box, which Linux has no support for now or even in the near future. IBM deals with millions of transactions daily, and with extremely high performance technologies, and with extremely reliable servers.
Linux is fine for individuals, small businesses, even most average businesses.
But IBM's market is *worldwide* business models. 24/7 year round operation. Scaleable and redundant and reliant systems. Extremely process intensive business models.
I can't speak for SCO except they only gain by leeching off IBM here. Every comment on/. seems to indicate that they are a dead/dying company, and I don't know how to argue that.
Intel is big, but not nearly so big as IBM, I think, and this alliance gives them entry into much bigger markets with much higher profits than just desktop PCs and suck.
Sony of course plays all sides of the market; they sell and release music, hardware, and media. It would be terribly remiss of them not to try and offer the third leg of the stool, a digital audio/hardware format for public consumption.
That being said, it seems sorta silly. The idea of encrypting or protecting data is not necessarily bad, especially for musicians and companies who get paid per company; but another post pointed this out, how much will it cost for a new artist to overcome the initial costs of getting access to this format? If it's as proprietary and closed as the Memory Stick seems to be, it won't do a thing to help budding artists and like.
The idea is a good one, technologically, I think. Say your Memory Stick has some private key embedded within, like in PGP technology. Lets also say the MS has a public key. If Sony is going to sell you some song, it takes the public key, encrypts it with said key, and sends it to you, where the Memory Stick will the proceed to decrypt and store it.
No one else will be able to unencrypt it, right? So copying won't work. I'm not sure how Memory Stick to Memory Stick transfer would work, and I assume MS to MS copying would just not be allowed. Perhaps it would just entail re-encoding the song with the other stick's public key and re-decoding it within the other stick.
This of course assumes that there is some amount of processing power in the stick itself. Perhaps all the stick stores is the private key and the music, and the player does all the miscellaneous encoding and decoding...
Seriously, if you believe copyright is important, how can MP3 be used to deal with this?
Several things jump out; anyone know anything more?
What's going to be inside one of these things for $1,500-$2,000?
I'd expect a current $70 Celeron300A without floppy, CD-ROM, Linux installed, $40 SVGA video card, $90 motherboard with onboard sound, $40 NIC, $900 for a 18GB SCSI HD(for kicks), $200 for a SCSI card, and $500 for 256mb of SDRAM... $1800 machine, with totally awesome HD and more than adequate CPU for a small business, no? With only 30-100 people, right? Scrape the memory and HD down to say, 9GB SCSI and 64mb memory, and the price goes down to $1000 dollars or something =)
If you cared about reliability(for a small office of only 30-100?) you could set up 2 of these machines mirroring each other, for $2000 dollars, right?
I don't know that one could argue ease of use either, because in the Intel/M$ case, because it's sealed, if something goes wrong you aren't give the option of fixing it. In a Linux box, worse case, no one in the office knows how to fix it. Best case, one of the office workers originally set it up and can probably get it up to speed, or hangs out at/. and knows people who can, in less than a day or two.
If this is such a hot market, why does Intel and M$ think they can beat out a $1000 Linux box?
Hmmm. It's not as if IBM actually got burned by using off the shelf components...
They are an industry supplier of PC components, if I am not mistaken, including LCD screens, monitors, hard drives, etc.
They also happen to have a very nice line of notebooks, and a very very nice PowerPC line as well. So both parties, the consumer and IBM have gained from this, as not only has their pie grown, their slice of the pie is actually fairly significant, considering how big they are.
It seems a lot of developers are afraid that by releasing hardware info competitors will get some sort of insight into their products and an advantage in the marketplace.
Why is it no one ever thinks that by being liberal with their information they will in return get more hardware level support? Is there any history somewhere of company XYZ allowing info of their stuff to get released and getting burned by it? Yeah, it is sorta relying on social reciprocity, which is a social and not a legal contract...
It's not like being the Most Widely supported, understood, acknowledged, and programmed for is a bad thing, though with mass public release I could see a company losing some of its freedom, being tied to its customers when releasing new/future products. But isn't that actually called customer loyalty and having an installed user base?
One thing I can think of, if 3dfx released info on their Glide API, then other companies could ostensbily offer support for it, either as drivers or in hardware, and then 3dfx would seriously have to compete in an additional arena, since Glide capability would no longer be a sign of uniqueness. Heck, free coders could release better wrappers for Glide for alternative devices, like ATI's cards, which have *huge* installed bases, and hurt 3dfx immensely.
Or is that analogy and concept different than a hardware company releasing spec and info?
People are raving about the PalmPilot, a very effective, efficient, easy to use pda, an information management device.
You you could make something, a stupid fast reliable cheap email client, I'm sure that would take off too, expecially since it is just text. Why would someone use that? It's convenient to store and send messages, especially at a reasonable cost. If it's slightly more expensive, and has the capability to do Java and web browsing, I'm sure many would be satisfied with it, and not want a whole PC.
On the other extreme, you can have a game/entertainment device, like a game console... Think the PSX2, with DVD, CD, PSX1, PSX2 support.
Why would someone want something as clunky, difficult, and ornery as a PC?
On the other hand, it's very powerful, flexible, and programmable, though these features cause it to be clunky sometimes, difficult, and hard to use.
What is the PalmPilot, if not an information management 'appliance'?
Would you argue that these this niche would be better served with notebook PCs, and that everyone who bought one was scammed or something?
Or even console gaming systems? Would you argue they aren't entertainment 'appliances' that would be better replaced with a full PC and 3d graphics and sound, with associated headache?
What about Sony's planned PSX2; on paper, it seems like an entertainment 'appliance', with DVD movie support(hopefully), PSX2 game support, PSX1 game support, CD music support, and additional functionality availble through USB and FireWire ports. It may have the option of email and web browsing, with the addition of a keyboard, mouse, and a bootable CD of, say, Linux...
What is an HP programmable scientific calculator if not a calculation and scientific 'appliance'? It's a bastard of a computer, but has enough power and functionality to play small games, do some serious calculation, graphing, etc. It's an example of a specific function that a full computer can easily do, boiled down to a handheld, instant on, instant use device.
Just because the PC is popular/powerful/programmable doesn't make it the best solution for anything/everything. It can do anything/everything... but not necessarily conveniently, effectively, or effeciently.
Why focus on the 'incomplete' part instead of perhaps a more 'focused' machine?
Is a PalmPilot not an incomplete computer?
Why is it so popular then?
So apply some of the same principles that drive the 'Pilot: Efficiency, effectiveness, ease of use.
Apply these concepts to other devices...
A home entertainment device(gasp!) like the PSX2, which will handle DVDs(movies too, I hope), CD music, PSX1 games, and light computation situations with a USB mouse and keyboard.
It's just so much simpler to deal with a console today than with the standard PC; buy a game, plug it in, turn it on, and play.
With a PC, config files need to be messed with, optimizations for different hardware might be necessary, new drivers and updated software may be required...
Imagine a machine similar in concept to a PSX2 or other console but applied to the internet, or to communications, or to multiplayer/single player gaming... Take the basic components of the PC, and distill it into each device such that there is nothing more complicated that turning it on, waiting a few seconds for bootup, and then using it! There should never be re-configuration for each device, ever, other than perhaps user taste.
There seems to be two conflicting trends I can't quite reconciliate, yet.
The thought that PCs might get supplanted by simpler devices...
My thoughts on this tend towards some analogies; PalmPilots as simple devices that relieve some of the need for a notebook, portable, or handheld PC, for note taking, PIM, scheduling, etc.
Or a handheld programmable calculator, like an HP, replacing a notebook etc for computational purposes.
Each one is a dedicated device; one a dedicated information management device, the other a dedicated calculation machine. Each is fairly programmable and generic, but still simple and effective.
Another example is a console system as a dedicated gaming machine, like SNESes, Genesi, and PSXs of old.
The multifunction route, another angle that is popping up, seems to say that the PC is too complicated, and that a simpler machine, but similar to the HP calc or PalmPilot in being a computational device would succeed. The PSX2 is an example I think fits the bill perfectly.
A dedicated entertainment device; CDs, DVDs, games, and perhaps even the odd email or web browsing experience, with a USB keyboard, mouse, and modem.
Or a dedicated internet device would work too, with hardware accelerated Java, a browser, some telnet functionality, email, perhaps mp3 support and speakers for streaming music or listening to music locally, etc.
Why would a household who does not take advantage of the programmability of a PC want the full power, cost, maintanence, and hassle of said programmability?
PalmPilots instead of notebooks is the biggest example of a dedicated purpose device supplanting the general purpose PC.
Or game consoles instead of PCs for games... It's been happening for years, and if Sony's PSX2 is as cool as it looks on paper, perhaps even more of a shift towards a dedicated entertainment device over a general purpose (flexible yet full of headaches) PC.
It's just a prediction that simpler easier to use devices will replace PCs for a bunch of functionality in which new users don't want/need the hassle/freedom/flexibility of a PC.
Why use a handheld calculator even when you could use a notebook PC with Excel?
Why use a wristwatch with time/date functionality when you could lug around a handheld calculator, or even a notebook PC?
Why use a remote control for your TV/VCR when you could reprogram/rewire your HP scientific calculator to do so?
Perhaps my examples are extreme, but they're so obvious that I think most people miss the fact that it does in fact happen.
I'm pretty convinced it will happen, though not quite in the way you phrased it.
The multifunction device isn't specific *enough*, though it can probably function fine.
Why buy a PalmPilot when you can lug around a notebook PC or Mac? The PalmPilot is an example of a targeted device, relatively inexpensive, *efficient*, effective, and simple. For the same reason, why do people buy consoles to play games when they could have a PC? You don't deal with the hassles(which are also freedoms) of a multi-function device in a targeted machine.
Perhaps another example; the upcoming PSX2 is a multi-function device, with DVD, PSX1 game, PSX2 game, and CD music device. However, it is also a very specific targeted machine; entertainment. Unlike getting a PC, with DVD decoder, 3d graphics accelerator, 3d sound acceleration, USB joysticks and gamepads, copious amounts of memory and disc space, you get a compact effective efficient device for about half to a third of the cost.
It can't do nearly as much, but it chooses to do a specific subset well. It may also be able to do web browsing and a few other minor things, because it can, but it's value is efficiency. Plug it in, turn it on, pop in CD/DVD, and play.
No need for autoexecs, new drivers, new bios updates, new perhipherals devices...
Likewise, if someone just wants to listen to mp3s, browse the web, write email, ICQ, IRC, perhaps internet voice phone, and internet video phone, a 300$ device to hook up to a TV, or a reasonable 15" monitor seems very apt. Why bother with the muscle (and flexibiltiy/headache) of a more powerful machine?
You may not, but the average user who doesn't do *more* would appreciate the simplicity and effectiveness of such a targeted solution.
Likewise, a gaming PC, to compete perhaps with the PSX2 or its ilk, could also evolve. Nice large 17" monitor, AGP4x video card with dedicated floating point on board geometry processor and multiple rendering pipelines, a good 3d sound card, perhaps ethernet for networking, a minimal WinOS or LinOS or MacOS, with some processor equivalent to a Celeron 300, would do well. Games would not rely on the CPU for performance, but on the 3d sound system to do the sound processing and the 3d graphics system for the drawing and transforms and floating point. The CPU would just be there for AI and minor contention stuff, physics, etc.
You could probably build the above system for about 400$, comparable to the PSX2, for a bit more flexibility. Notice the lack of a hard drive? Why bother? Perhaps a cheap minimal EIDE 1 gig, or whatever the min standard would be...
The games would be self contained on CDs or something, and the memory would not be burdened by an overbloated OS...
Seems as if there are two levels of action at work.
Moderators craft a user's alignment values according to their reaction to a post.
On the other hand, users with higher alignments will be generally seen more often, just because of the general prefernce of viewers to read generally accepted highly valued comments. Unless moderators intentionally go about reading at -1 or something to pick up all the loose ends, or they intentionally ignore comments above a certain threshold(why would they though? Proven track record and all), I think the system may be some sort of positive feedback loop.
Maybe I have the mentality of a moderator wrong, and they generally do read everything, and are fairly good about not increasing someone who is already default 2 or 3.
Regardless, I like very much the idea of a default post value, defineable by alignment or something.
I'm not sure I have a better suggestion, though, for the moderator positive feedback issue, if it even is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then so should source code for encryption be protected; but despite that, the government 'issue' against encryption seems archaic, backwards, and harmful to our own economy and society.
AS
It seems news.com provided an review of a review...
It's pretty bad that their report, news.com's, is uneven, though it highlights both strength and weakness. It doesn't explain their own reporting, much less Brown's.
Someone mentioned the pdf; is it available?
You have to pay for the real report... and there's a form I just filled out for an executive summary...
I can accept their claim that for 'enterprise computing' that other unices beat it, but not that 'Windows NT holds an advantage'. Price/performance, stability, and interoperability, from hearsay all over the web, seems to be Linux's strength against NT deployments.
Linux definitely seems to lack in robust SMP, or as they say, 'non-trivial SMP scalability', except I'm not so sure that NT qualifies. Isn't NT limited to 2 or 4 processor Intel solutions, which are themselves not quite so hot for enterprise level computing? As compared to bigger Sun or Alpha solutions? Maybe someone can correct me and tell me about a distribution of NT that runs on 32 processor Intel or Alpha machines at a reasonable cost and at reasonable performace and up time?
As for journaling, high availability clustering and such, I guess that much is true or under development... But I still don't believe that they think NT satisfies their requirements for an enterprise level computing solution!
Anyone care to correct me?
AS
These speakers use a different vibrational technique than that of magneplanars or electrostatic speakers. The goal is still to produce massless driverless speakers, and towards that goal the NXT technology has shrunked the speaker elements towards the size of molecular clumps.
Magneplanars and electrostatics use smaller distributed drivers, and in this sense are similar to NXT's speakers, but they still use larger elements with more mass and more frequency distortion issues. However, since the technique has been done previously by Magenplanars and electrostatics, they can be drawn from...
One thing I can see as a disadvantage is that NXT speakers might not be able to deal with 3d sound other than multiple speakers arranged in an enclosing formation. Perhaps with more computational power and advanced encoding of sound, a single sheet speaker can produce phase varying sound, and multiple speakers can produce delay varying sound, for a better 3d sound experience.
Can a magneplanar speaker be used in this sense, since it is an array of many small speakers? Has anyone tried to create a simple/single 3d sound solution out of a magneplanar speaker?
AS
For some cases I would agree wholeheartedly that programming is an art; a well designed VLSI chip, and elegant algorithmic solution, a concise and effecient snippet of code involve artistic talent and effort, as such. But I would not classify that the finished output, the program, the chip, the code, as art.
The intention of art is not in its application, whereas in computer code the application is inherent in the design and implementation, and thus engineering. A painting, like code, is commissioned and paid for, but the value of a painting is the painting itself, whereas the code in of itself does not have any value except perhaps in aesthetic appreciation by fellow programmers.
There are some disciplines in which the boundary is shady, like architecture or aircraft or consumer appliances, in which the appearance plays as fundamental role as the application. Code however doesn't seem to fall under this umbrella.
Perhaps if you were to distribute and send encryption or security code as a tribute and example of excellent code, it would pass under free speech, but working and real code would rarely qualify I think.
AS
Reading through the article, it sounds like their Evanescent Coupling technique is a direct application of quantum tunneling, though the term and effect is more often discussed with electrons and discontinuous barriers, ie electrons tunneling through a barrier. Perhaps I don't have this right, any physics majors willing to correct me?
It would seem even without the increase in areal density observed, the techniques involved with flying heads and SIL/Evanescent Coupling would revolutionize removeable media, allowing the speed lower latency of current Winchester media and the durability and reliability of MO media.
I'm not sure myself why crescent shaped domains would aide and increase the areal density; is there some sort of implied overlap between data regions? Is it just a function of tighter packing? Or just smaller domains because of SIL and tighter laser focus/embedded magnetic coils in the flying head?
Why wouldn't this be applicable to current magnetic hard drives then? Because magnetic forces cannot be shaped or focused in a way that optical beams can?
AS
Several comments thus far on this being old-tech.
This is new stuff, but you are right in saying it's an old form...
Not only is it flat, it's thin; the company who designed and owns the patent is working on making a thin acrylic or plastic sheet an active speaker device, and thus make LCD screens in notebooks or even a sheet layered upon a conventional CRT active speaker elements.
The concept is much different than traditional flat speakers, and an issue with these speakers is the loss of the 'sweet spot' traditionally seen in directional speakers. These flat speakers project sound in a flat plane, and the interaction of the two speakers will not produce a cone of good sound quality, but rather a uniform zone of sound that should not change as one moves around in it. This doesn't bar reflective or destructive interference and interaction between the sound source, walls, and other obstructions, of course.
Succinctly, these speakers work by setting up vibrational modes across the surface of a sheet of plastic material, forcing the entire sheet to act as a speaker. They have effectively enabled each atom and molecule on the surface of a sheet to act as a driver unit, as opposed to a coil behind a cone. This design also removes the frequency limitations that were traditionaly dealt with by having a tweeter, midrange, and bass, though a bass unit is provided for more volume and kick, I believe.
There's more information at their site
flat panel technology
Because there is no directionality or frequency distributed speakers, I almost think that the technology is inherently incompatible with 3d sound algorithms, though it is still possible to create 3d sound by being surrounded by these speakers and sending different signals to each speaker. It would be equivalent to trying to create a true 3d image out of a 2d surface like a CRT of LCD.
AS
I don't think source code is any more a form of speech than a recipe for a cake, a set of instructions to make a bomb, or a to-do list to get one through a day.
That being said, I also don't think the government is in the right to restrict the dissemination of source as pertaining to encryption, which seems to be the issue that incited this case.
I don't think the government would restrict or care to restrict anyone from posting source or code on how to compress data, filter images, sort lists, etc. The government specifically thinks that encryption is some sort of weapon, and one that should not be allowed outside our borders, much like techniques to purify uranium or to increase the efficiacy of a fusion/fission thermonuclear device.
Similarly, it would seem that, in a hypothetical case, they would limit the ability of encryption and security experts to travel, again for national security reasons.
The argument that source code is a form of speech and protected as such is an appeal to the dissemination of ideas and thought as a universal right, and that telling/showing someone how to encrypt data securely is perhaps akin to telling/showing someone how to keep their houses secured. I'm not sure that the government would make such an issue if it were an abstract, publication, or essay, with source fragments and descriptive passages, describing encryption and security.
However I also feel that even if that were the case, an issue of detail and intent, I believe that the government is only hurting our country and our electronic future by being so protectionist about security and encryption. I can understand if it were an issue on thermonuclear warheads, as the device and its usages are all destructive and damaging, but not if it were information about the safe handling, usage, and construction of nuclear powerplants.
In the same way I don't see that encryption and related issues can be treated as weapons, but as tools. If this were source on viruses and ilk, it would be a much nastier issue, but security and encryption as such, while applicable to non-friendly or dangerous intent, is in of itself not something that is a threat to the security of the US. Financial transactions, industrial communication, even governmental transactions all benefit from a wider dissemination of encryption and security. It would be a case of protection from hostile intent, rather than attack from hostile parties, that security and encryption seems to deal with.
My 2 cents
AS
Perhaps there is a use for Intel's SSE, for the average consumer.
Speed ups of MP3 encoding. That should very nicely accelerate the acceptance, growth, and potential of the music format.
However, the point the article made is very good.
Better sound quality is necessary, but I think the fault currently lies in poor/bad encoder implementations in which short cuts and 1/2 degree approximations are used, and a better faster encoder would help immensely. Perhaps even better source data would help too, but we can't actually do much as CDs don't come at 56kHz 32bit sound quality or something...
An alternative to the RIAA would be necessary for the industries involved to embrace such an open and free standard.
I would think, perhaps, that a customizeable CD service might flourish. Download 96kbps songs, which would be acknowledge as lower quality, with 196kbps samples to emphasize the difference, for users to preview, keep, and enjoy.
The same site would also offer the ability to pick and choose any of their songs to be encoded on a CD, at 196kbps, with customizeable source art. Another possibility perhaps is a dual mode CD; one track would contain the mp3s and another the data in CDA format, to be useable in CD players and in PCs. Perhaps they could even offer this on a DVD to utilize 256kpbs quality mp3s, CDA music, and 2 'free' songs in both formats to encourage you to try alternative songs...
One possibility for the mp3 format.
AS
So this moderation system really seems to work. If there were another post by CmdrTaco about moderation, I would post it there, instead...
/. and to know what to expect to appear at /.
Now that my words actually have value, I find myself carefully reviewing, reading other arguments, and then posting a calculated post...
I also see something quite amusing here.
Anyone read Ender's Game? More specifcally, the sequal, in which Val and Peter Wiggins assume carefully crafted personas on the worldwide network, and through careful usage of word and opinion, gain rank, respect, fame, and influence?
I'd take the Peter Wiggins role, which I believe was called Locke, if anyone else wants to play Valentine's Demosthenes? As in the story, the game would involve getting higher and higher post values, carefully creating consistent personas, trawling the web not only for current info and viewpoints to manipulate and take advantage of, but also to post to
I have no plans or expectations for a hegemony or world conquest, as Peter did, but only to have fun, and see how cool it would be. Of course it would require people to take new personas, accounts, and names.
Random brain fart.
AS
Still reason to be optimistic, however.
They can't yet lay down a layer of these things into the track/sheets needed for a disk plater, for one thing. They had to do so individually, best I could tell, when what they want is to, perhaps, apply some sort of magneto-electric field, spray a mist of these magets embedded in a gel, and as the magnets settle towards the surface of the platter they'd align and space themsevles according to the field, and then as the gel/platter is heated the fields become erased and the surface solid and fixed for future use.
Then the problem of actually reading/writing to the disk.
The suggestion of a massively parallel fixed read arm would still have the problem of many 'wires' of the same size as the magnets, which might not be feasible.
If a motorized arm is used, we'd need something more precise and accurate than currently possible. Perhaps piezo-electric seek heads, grown within specifications, used to move the arm back and forth. As opposed to coils or something.
If I make no sense, please ignore, but I think those are some of the biggest hurdles to deal with.
AS
For it's part, I think M$ is misusing the term, but in reality, I also think everyone is mis-interpreting M$'s speculation.
If I recall correctly, M$ is considering releasing it's source to valuable customers, sort of a good will gesture and as a service. Home users don't quite qualify as valuable customers, yet. It's main use would not be the improvement of their OS, per se, but of a total quality cycle in which developers and massive deployments can rely on the source and being able to either debug, or at least accurately report to M$, a problem.
They are considering opening the source to their valuable customers, and not making their product Open Source(TM), IIRC.
As a business move, it's no different than an independent software house providing source alongside with binaries when doing proprietary stuff.
It would also, on M$ part, tie the relationship closer to it's customers, for good and for bad.
It might also lead to some really good improvements in the future of the Win OSes if large organizations such as SGI, IBM, HP, Dell, Compaq, etc., were able to examine the source, offer improvements, extensions, and patches, without M$ spending much on it, and these companies will get the ability to differentiate their products.
SGI would be able to extend and expand their Visual PC, for example... And still maintains some level of compatibility with the Win32API, if for example M$ rules that the APIs stay fixed and only the implementations can be free, sort of the way that OpenGL is currently, with the API well defined, each vendor responsible for designing and releasing an ICD/MCD, and also with each vendor being able to release and offer extensions using the OpenGL extensions capability.
It may mean that a valuable customer is someone to whom M$ has been paid to see the source, like a down payment or lease or deposit to ensure that the source isn't leaked.
It's not a bad move, I think.
AS
"May you live in interesting times"
-random Chinese proverb, probably Confucian =)
So Apple set a trend and benchmark; consumers are at least as fashion conscious as power conscious. iMac flavors, design, and cuteness sells.
Why not? Notice the VW neoBeetle, for example!
However, I note several problems and have several thoughts.
A lot of people bash the iMac for cost, noting quite accurately that one could build a similarly powered system for half the price, without realizing that one would need to be knowledgable enought to build and maintain said computer. Call it a stupidity tax if you want, but that cost can be justified by the simpleness and attempt at being plug and play.
It's not as if a comparable Dell or Gateway costs $600 dollars right now. Is it me? With 6GB HD, 32MB memory, 32x CDROM(and floppy of course), and 15" monitor, the price is (gasp!) $1,018, not that far off from the iMac's $1,199 price, plus the fact you get to chose a color.
My guess is if Dell goes for the future consumer PC with larger monitor and such, Apple will beat it to the punch(12-18 months? Why so long for a PC maker the size of Dell?), with faster processors, better video cards, and larger monitors.
In a year I'd expect Apple's iMac to come with a nice quality 17" monitor, at least a 450MHz CPU, 64mb of memory, an ATI Rage Fury 32mb adaptor(about the same as a current TNT, not the Fury Pro), at least 6GB of HD space, perhaps ISDN or whatever revolutionary internet connectivity standard is hot, and separate speakers with 3d sound capability.
Assuming Apple doesn't make another blunder somewhere.
The PC market is still not offering anything cheaper than an iMac with it's functionality, performance, or style.
You can build your own, but that isn't the point.
Dell probably isn't the only one, just the first/only one to publicly announce it.
I also think that Apple's future device will drop below $1,000 dollars, and if bundled with MacOSX, will beat hands down Windows98, assuming it has all the standard features that Win98 and MacOS8.6 currently has. Windows will be on SR2 or whatever, with Win2k being to big and bloated for home use, and Win2k Personal won't be available yet.
I really think Apple is on the ball here.
AS
Some really great beginning statements, but sorta sounded like you changed minds 2/3 of the way through...
/. seems to indicate that they are a dead/dying company, and I don't know how to argue that.
They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it.
I would just like to continue the argument by sayin *do not* underestimate IBM. Their AIM alliance produced the PowerPC to good effect for them, even if they haven't used it to penetrate the home/desktop PC.
Likewise this strategy, while not apparently a Great Thing, could still have very much a use for IBM.
Anyway, IBM pushes a lot of new technology and capability that Linux just doesn't have the support for. Yet, as always. Eventually perhaps, and perhaps with some help from IBM, but for really huge enterprise level deployments, IBM needs something it can really depend on and can market for it's dependability. Something with their name on it, and not just for legal litigation purposes. They will be supporting things like hundreds of processors in a box, which Linux has no support for now or even in the near future. IBM deals with millions of transactions daily, and with extremely high performance technologies, and with extremely reliable servers.
Linux is fine for individuals, small businesses, even most average businesses.
But IBM's market is *worldwide* business models. 24/7 year round operation. Scaleable and redundant and reliant systems. Extremely process intensive business models.
I can't speak for SCO except they only gain by leeching off IBM here. Every comment on
Intel is big, but not nearly so big as IBM, I think, and this alliance gives them entry into much bigger markets with much higher profits than just desktop PCs and suck.
My 2 cents
AS
Sony of course plays all sides of the market; they sell and release music, hardware, and media. It would be terribly remiss of them not to try and offer the third leg of the stool, a digital audio/hardware format for public consumption.
That being said, it seems sorta silly. The idea of encrypting or protecting data is not necessarily bad, especially for musicians and companies who get paid per company; but another post pointed this out, how much will it cost for a new artist to overcome the initial costs of getting access to this format? If it's as proprietary and closed as the Memory Stick seems to be, it won't do a thing to help budding artists and like.
The idea is a good one, technologically, I think. Say your Memory Stick has some private key embedded within, like in PGP technology. Lets also say the MS has a public key. If Sony is going to sell you some song, it takes the public key, encrypts it with said key, and sends it to you, where the Memory Stick will the proceed to decrypt and store it.
No one else will be able to unencrypt it, right? So copying won't work. I'm not sure how Memory Stick to Memory Stick transfer would work, and I assume MS to MS copying would just not be allowed. Perhaps it would just entail re-encoding the song with the other stick's public key and re-decoding it within the other stick.
This of course assumes that there is some amount of processing power in the stick itself. Perhaps all the stick stores is the private key and the music, and the player does all the miscellaneous encoding and decoding...
Seriously, if you believe copyright is important, how can MP3 be used to deal with this?
AS
Several things jump out; anyone know anything more?
/. and knows people who can, in less than a day or two.
What's going to be inside one of these things for $1,500-$2,000?
I'd expect a current $70 Celeron300A without floppy, CD-ROM, Linux installed, $40 SVGA video card, $90 motherboard with onboard sound, $40 NIC, $900 for a 18GB SCSI HD(for kicks), $200 for a SCSI card, and $500 for 256mb of SDRAM... $1800 machine, with totally awesome HD and more than adequate CPU for a small business, no? With only 30-100 people, right? Scrape the memory and HD down to say, 9GB SCSI and 64mb memory, and the price goes down to $1000 dollars or something =)
If you cared about reliability(for a small office of only 30-100?) you could set up 2 of these machines mirroring each other, for $2000 dollars, right?
I don't know that one could argue ease of use either, because in the Intel/M$ case, because it's sealed, if something goes wrong you aren't give the option of fixing it. In a Linux box, worse case, no one in the office knows how to fix it. Best case, one of the office workers originally set it up and can probably get it up to speed, or hangs out at
If this is such a hot market, why does Intel and M$ think they can beat out a $1000 Linux box?
Why do they think they will dominate that market?
Am I missing something?
AS
ATI Rage Fury actually has some very good OpenGL; better than 3dfx, not quite as good as nVidia. Getting better each week, however =)
Don't forget Permedia, with its P2 chip, fairly good at D3d and very good at OpenGL, though the P2 isn't a consumer game board.
Also you forgot the Matrox G200, which have worse OpenGL than 3dfx, but very good D3d and excellent image quality.
Then there is S3's Savage3d, which is cheap, good at D3d, and has the Metal API.
AS
Hmmm.
It's not as if IBM actually got burned by using off the shelf components...
They are an industry supplier of PC components, if I am not mistaken, including LCD screens, monitors, hard drives, etc.
They also happen to have a very nice line of notebooks, and a very very nice PowerPC line as well. So both parties, the consumer and IBM have gained from this, as not only has their pie grown, their slice of the pie is actually fairly significant, considering how big they are.
AS
It seems a lot of developers are afraid that by releasing hardware info competitors will get some sort of insight into their products and an advantage in the marketplace.
Why is it no one ever thinks that by being liberal with their information they will in return get more hardware level support? Is there any history somewhere of company XYZ allowing info of their stuff to get released and getting burned by it? Yeah, it is sorta relying on social reciprocity, which is a social and not a legal contract...
It's not like being the Most Widely supported, understood, acknowledged, and programmed for is a bad thing, though with mass public release I could see a company losing some of its freedom, being tied to its customers when releasing new/future products. But isn't that actually called customer loyalty and having an installed user base?
One thing I can think of, if 3dfx released info on their Glide API, then other companies could ostensbily offer support for it, either as drivers or in hardware, and then 3dfx would seriously have to compete in an additional arena, since Glide capability would no longer be a sign of uniqueness. Heck, free coders could release better wrappers for Glide for alternative devices, like ATI's cards, which have *huge* installed bases, and hurt 3dfx immensely.
Or is that analogy and concept different than a hardware company releasing spec and info?
AS
People are raving about the PalmPilot, a very effective, efficient, easy to use pda, an information management device.
You you could make something, a stupid fast reliable cheap email client, I'm sure that would take off too, expecially since it is just text. Why would someone use that? It's convenient to store and send messages, especially at a reasonable cost. If it's slightly more expensive, and has the capability to do Java and web browsing, I'm sure many would be satisfied with it, and not want a whole PC.
On the other extreme, you can have a game/entertainment device, like a game console... Think the PSX2, with DVD, CD, PSX1, PSX2 support.
Why would someone want something as clunky, difficult, and ornery as a PC?
On the other hand, it's very powerful, flexible, and programmable, though these features cause it to be clunky sometimes, difficult, and hard to use.
AS
What is the PalmPilot, if not an information management 'appliance'?
Would you argue that these this niche would be better served with notebook PCs, and that everyone who bought one was scammed or something?
Or even console gaming systems? Would you argue they aren't entertainment 'appliances' that would be better replaced with a full PC and 3d graphics and sound, with associated headache?
What about Sony's planned PSX2; on paper, it seems like an entertainment 'appliance', with DVD movie support(hopefully), PSX2 game support, PSX1 game support, CD music support, and additional functionality availble through USB and FireWire ports. It may have the option of email and web browsing, with the addition of a keyboard, mouse, and a bootable CD of, say, Linux...
What is an HP programmable scientific calculator if not a calculation and scientific 'appliance'? It's a bastard of a computer, but has enough power and functionality to play small games, do some serious calculation, graphing, etc. It's an example of a specific function that a full computer can easily do, boiled down to a handheld, instant on, instant use device.
Just because the PC is popular/powerful/programmable doesn't make it the best solution for anything/everything. It can do anything/everything... but not necessarily conveniently, effectively, or effeciently.
AS
Why focus on the 'incomplete' part instead of perhaps a more 'focused' machine?
Is a PalmPilot not an incomplete computer?
Why is it so popular then?
So apply some of the same principles that drive the 'Pilot:
Efficiency, effectiveness, ease of use.
Apply these concepts to other devices...
A home entertainment device(gasp!) like the PSX2, which will handle DVDs(movies too, I hope), CD music, PSX1 games, and light computation situations with a USB mouse and keyboard.
It's just so much simpler to deal with a console today than with the standard PC; buy a game, plug it in, turn it on, and play.
With a PC, config files need to be messed with, optimizations for different hardware might be necessary, new drivers and updated software may be required...
Imagine a machine similar in concept to a PSX2 or other console but applied to the internet, or to communications, or to multiplayer/single player gaming... Take the basic components of the PC, and distill it into each device such that there is nothing more complicated that turning it on, waiting a few seconds for bootup, and then using it! There should never be re-configuration for each device, ever, other than perhaps user taste.
AS
There seems to be two conflicting trends I can't quite reconciliate, yet.
The thought that PCs might get supplanted by simpler devices...
My thoughts on this tend towards some analogies; PalmPilots as simple devices that relieve some of the need for a notebook, portable, or handheld PC, for note taking, PIM, scheduling, etc.
Or a handheld programmable calculator, like an HP, replacing a notebook etc for computational purposes.
Each one is a dedicated device; one a dedicated information management device, the other a dedicated calculation machine. Each is fairly programmable and generic, but still simple and effective.
Another example is a console system as a dedicated gaming machine, like SNESes, Genesi, and PSXs of old.
The multifunction route, another angle that is popping up, seems to say that the PC is too complicated, and that a simpler machine, but similar to the HP calc or PalmPilot in being a computational device would succeed. The PSX2 is an example I think fits the bill perfectly.
A dedicated entertainment device; CDs, DVDs, games, and perhaps even the odd email or web browsing experience, with a USB keyboard, mouse, and modem.
Or a dedicated internet device would work too, with hardware accelerated Java, a browser, some telnet functionality, email, perhaps mp3 support and speakers for streaming music or listening to music locally, etc.
Why would a household who does not take advantage of the programmability of a PC want the full power, cost, maintanence, and hassle of said programmability?
AS
PalmPilots instead of notebooks is the biggest example of a dedicated purpose device supplanting the general purpose PC.
Or game consoles instead of PCs for games... It's been happening for years, and if Sony's PSX2 is as cool as it looks on paper, perhaps even more of a shift towards a dedicated entertainment device over a general purpose (flexible yet full of headaches) PC.
It's just a prediction that simpler easier to use devices will replace PCs for a bunch of functionality in which new users don't want/need the hassle/freedom/flexibility of a PC.
Why use a handheld calculator even when you could use a notebook PC with Excel?
Why use a wristwatch with time/date functionality when you could lug around a handheld calculator, or even a notebook PC?
Why use a remote control for your TV/VCR when you could reprogram/rewire your HP scientific calculator to do so?
Perhaps my examples are extreme, but they're so obvious that I think most people miss the fact that it does in fact happen.
AS
I'm pretty convinced it will happen, though not quite in the way you phrased it.
The multifunction device isn't specific *enough*, though it can probably function fine.
Why buy a PalmPilot when you can lug around a notebook PC or Mac? The PalmPilot is an example of a targeted device, relatively inexpensive, *efficient*, effective, and simple. For the same reason, why do people buy consoles to play games when they could have a PC? You don't deal with the hassles(which are also freedoms) of a multi-function device in a targeted machine.
Perhaps another example; the upcoming PSX2 is a multi-function device, with DVD, PSX1 game, PSX2 game, and CD music device. However, it is also a very specific targeted machine; entertainment. Unlike getting a PC, with DVD decoder, 3d graphics accelerator, 3d sound acceleration, USB joysticks and gamepads, copious amounts of memory and disc space, you get a compact effective efficient device for about half to a third of the cost.
It can't do nearly as much, but it chooses to do a specific subset well. It may also be able to do web browsing and a few other minor things, because it can, but it's value is efficiency. Plug it in, turn it on, pop in CD/DVD, and play.
No need for autoexecs, new drivers, new bios updates, new perhipherals devices...
Likewise, if someone just wants to listen to mp3s, browse the web, write email, ICQ, IRC, perhaps internet voice phone, and internet video phone, a 300$ device to hook up to a TV, or a reasonable 15" monitor seems very apt. Why bother with the muscle (and flexibiltiy/headache) of a more powerful machine?
You may not, but the average user who doesn't do *more* would appreciate the simplicity and effectiveness of such a targeted solution.
Likewise, a gaming PC, to compete perhaps with the PSX2 or its ilk, could also evolve. Nice large 17" monitor, AGP4x video card with dedicated floating point on board geometry processor and multiple rendering pipelines, a good 3d sound card, perhaps ethernet for networking, a minimal WinOS or LinOS or MacOS, with some processor equivalent to a Celeron 300, would do well. Games would not rely on the CPU for performance, but on the 3d sound system to do the sound processing and the 3d graphics system for the drawing and transforms and floating point. The CPU would just be there for AI and minor contention stuff, physics, etc.
You could probably build the above system for about 400$, comparable to the PSX2, for a bit more flexibility. Notice the lack of a hard drive? Why bother? Perhaps a cheap minimal EIDE 1 gig, or whatever the min standard would be...
The games would be self contained on CDs or something, and the memory would not be burdened by an overbloated OS...
AS
Seems as if there are two levels of action at work.
Moderators craft a user's alignment values according to their reaction to a post.
On the other hand, users with higher alignments will be generally seen more often, just because of the general prefernce of viewers to read generally accepted highly valued comments. Unless moderators intentionally go about reading at -1 or something to pick up all the loose ends, or they intentionally ignore comments above a certain threshold(why would they though? Proven track record and all), I think the system may be some sort of positive feedback loop.
Maybe I have the mentality of a moderator wrong, and they generally do read everything, and are fairly good about not increasing someone who is already default 2 or 3.
Regardless, I like very much the idea of a default post value, defineable by alignment or something.
I'm not sure I have a better suggestion, though, for the moderator positive feedback issue, if it even is a problem.
AS