PhaseOne's PowerPhase FX has the highest resolution, at 10,500 x 12,600 pixels, file sizes from 380 M at 8 bit to 1 GB in 64 bit. That, plus the cost of the medium format camera gives you this choice: a house, or digital photography.
FUD from the Linux community. It just goes to show that everyone would like to be Bill Gates no matter how they claim to hate MS business ethics. Most people who say the world is unfair are really saying they wish it was unfair in their favor.
If Linux is to replace anything, it won't be because it is Linux, it will be because of businesses applying Linux solutions - and, as businesses, they are subject to all the laws of corporations and money-making greed as is every other business. Which means, they will need to differentiate themselves. The more successful they become, the more they will tend to try to become old IBM or today's Microsoft - complete with proprietary extensions and the next decade's version of the connector conspiracy / secret APIs. It is inevitable.
When Steve comes down from the mountain with a quad G4 server running OS X, I will bow down before him. As long as we are talking about the year 2000, not 2003. Sheesh!
I know this site is slow, but the server has a translucent case.
to most people. The software industry is benign. There's no slave labor, there's no equivalent to the need for, say, child labor laws or health laws like those that inspired the book The Jungle. There are no assassinations nor control of large numbers of families. Employees are all well-paid. Products are cheap - remember what an Apple ][ cost in 1980?
So what the hell are we complaining about again? The API is a tool of fascist oppression? gimme a break..
by supporting a wireless PAN networking such as bluetooth, a wrist computer such as this could serve as the display/input device for other, bulkier, more powerful devices that you leave in your backpack, on your desk, on the tripod, or in the trunk. Such as your PDA. Or GPS - without needing the GPS components on your wrist. Or a digital camera - allowing you to leave the camera untouched & stable, for example. Linux makes it a general purpose extension, but not a substitute for those other devices. And it doesn't technically have to be a "watch" anyway - ie, just because it is as small as a watch doesn't mean you have to wear it on your wrist. Ideally, I think this device would have a very high DPI display, possibly wide (1x2), and color. I would be perfectly happy configuring and setting its functionality via my PDA - much easier than waiting to be inspired with a new HCI paradigm or the useful but irritating standard digital watch user interface.
I would also like a device like this to power a larger display, say 4x6 inches on my desk, which I can use to display whatever I want, using wireless (or even wired) connection to my main computer, so I don't have to clutter my computer screen with status junk like clocks, system load, biff, stderr, whatever. The possibilities are endless.
Ah, but the existence of technology is the evolution of evolution itself. Humans exist to save all life on earth from extinction in the very long term. We're evolving ways to spread life through the galaxy. SETI is just a part of the beginning. And not everyone can work in planet maintenance; the talents of some are better suited to innovation.
People never dedicate attention to the really creative and innovative technologies, like Li sp Machines, so they're stuck in worshipping truly obsolete systems like Unix.
Well, the winners write the history books. When the hard AI/LISP community finally recovers from their crushing, total defeat by neurofuzzy systems, maybe they'll do it.
But, even worse, worshipping technology in and of itself is stupid. Technology is a tool. Do you worship axes? If you worship computers enough to write a history of an obsolete OS, why not write the history of the axe?
Unix is the work of great artists. Art inspires us to greatness. The history of Unix shows us people on the edge, how they acted, what decisions they made, and how they felt about it. Important for those who want to be doing that today. The rest can just go back to playing Quake.
Anyone have the Unix Magic poster, with the wizard mixing everything up in the shell? That's where it's at with Unix. Nothing is better than Unix at this. It was undeniably brilliant. Tragically, it is out-dated. main(argc, argv) and stdin/stdout and ASCII pipes, command line arguments as ASCII data are unable to support new application concepts. OS-level IPC should at least be more structured than ASCII streams. When Unix purists say but that can be built upon what we have, they are acknowledging Miguel's criticism - Unix is not innovating, applications are. We need a new application architecture at the OS level that is as brilliant and innovative as shell programming was - but in this new era. We should be able to have the modularity and code-reuse of the shell (which, incidentally, is the longest living and most successful code resuse design) with more modern concepts and needs.
Only a few of the major players around today will be the ones to survive the B2C backlash which has begun. Amazon probably will since it has a decent customer base and a good brand name, but smaller sites, such as yours I assume, will find it hard to compete against larger and/or more established competitors that can make savings you cannot.
If you were being asked to invest, it sounds like you'd say no. Which is fine. But you are really talking about the short term viability of B2C, not the long term. There are consumers, there are businesses, therefore, B2C: one does not need to aspire to becoming Amazon; all you need are enough customers to keep you profitable. As a consultant, I'm sure you realize that efficient online marketplaces (called B2B) are what enable efficient B2C. So first forget about that remark you made about "more established competitors can make savings you cannot" -- for the long term. You would have to deny that B2B decreases transaction costs, aka the "economies of scale" in the physical world. The whole point of B2B is to break that down, and B2C will therefore benefit. The huge merger activity we are seing is evidence to the contrary - B2B has not worked yet. Not yet. All the B2B investors think that it will. Long term - we're talking five, ten, twenty, fifty years. Not tomorrow.
Second, the "major players" will never, ever, I repeat, never ever be able to provide worthwhile personalized service (despite AI and buying circles). Big organizations will be focused on the profitability of individual customers if they attempt to maintain a customer relationship rather than being an anonymous storefront. There is - and will be - tremendous opportunity for small B2C outfits organized around real personalized services for specific markets - as small as they wanna be - who tap into online marketplaces and specialize in custom, small quantity one-off manufacturing (remember that efficient B2B thing) to do what no Amazon could ever do. In this way the internet means the destruction of the mass market in the long term, which as B2C written all over it. But long term. Probably not in the next few years.
But you're right to criticize individual B2C outfits today, as B2B is so obviously where it's at, except for half.com, who claims they are C2C (and zero to $300 million in 9 months proves... um, something.)
Forget about it. Although I'm not really an Ayn Rand fan, she is right about this one: "the mainstream isn't a stream at all, but a stagnant swamp."
So unless you simply want to convert heathens or ignorant mortals, just keep your good secrets to yourself. They don't care about them in the mainstream where it's just fashion and fad. The mainstream wants resume bullet points. Technology specifics don't matter.
So it seems that the bottom line is that the open source advocates/evangelists are taking it a bit too seriously. Selling this open source model by appealing to logic appears to be on shaky ground. How about a slick marketing camgaign instead, with lots of slo-mo, leather, and hypnotic music.
Computers aren't programmable. Not anymore. They used to come with BASIC interpreters. Now you just get Windows on the home PC, or a Mac. Kids can't learn as they play.
True; but all computers come with web browsers, and I don't see why JavaScript today is worse than BASIC in 1980.
For a new style of GUI to become popular it would have to make the work of the user easier without having a high learning curve.
Yes.. and it would have to be as revolutionary as the PARC GUI we all use today. I think we can reasonably say it won't be a WIMP (windows, icons, menu, pointer) interface - there are too many people thinking inside that box. The key invention was not the window, but the pointer "floating" above everything else. The pointer inspired mode-less programmg. The next interface revolution will involve a similar move outside the box and a host of resultant style shifts; with the PARC gui came event-driven programming, etc. In other words, anything less than such a shift is not a revolution but marketing hype.
desktop metaphor? I thought it was the prison metaphor.. I've been trying to telnet out..
Why couldn't you just do this with conventional LED type things?
you will see that as well. It's not like there will only be one display technology in "the future". blue LEDs are a short term problem. new & expensive. see blueled.com and Don Klipstein's LED page
Disregarding whether it is good or not, the worst environment for discoveries such as this is a totalitarian regime with the resources and the long term willpower for singular objectives centrally controlled with no temperment for dissent. Mao, Stalin, Hitler come to mind. America has no longterm governmental willpower for anything and a population that has an ingrained mistrust of authority (for the most part.. the one exception being the authority of medical doctors, to which Americans are largely passive.. hopefully the HMO debacle will serve the good purpose of breaking this down.).
As we have learned, you cannot un-invent technology. All we'll learn through "designer babies" is that they are anything but. We are not programmed and humans cannot control nature, because control is unnatural.
We can't stop people from wishing for designer babies. What we should be scared of is governments deciding that people should do certain things with such technology.... as always.
But the reality is that a lot of C++ programming is going on right now by people who really shouldn't be doing it. And they're being paid much more than the cable tv installers or gas station attendants they may have been in a different economy. They might have even been hired to do Visual Basic, but now a project is in C++, and as any PHB knows, computers are just computers, C++ programmers are expensive (and this book is cheap!).
Experienced C++ coders - or at least bright coders - are just hard to find. Better to have a good intro for people who will be writing C++ anyway.
It's interesting to look at technologies which have been made illegal by.gov's at various times as one way to assess their importance or potential imact - like photocopiers, typewriters, computers, etc. They're almost all communications devices or weapons! Inventions like lightbulbs and refrigerators have never been illegal (to my knowledge).
Ok, so whats the difference in having to remember to do:
Object *yadda = new Object(); vs: Object *yadda = gtk_object_new();
C doesn't know you're trying to do OO, so it doesn't tell you when you forget. C++ will only let you instantiate a class according to the rules of its constructors. And then superconstructors and super destructors (which you remembered to declare virtual) are automatically invoked by C++, even for multiple inheritance and in the correct order. This you may easily have forgotten in implementing your constructors and destructors in C, bus error...
But then, with more manual control, you can define your own object paradigm. Go for metaclasses! fix the downcasting problem! RTTI with low overhead! reflection! introspection!
Those are kind of significant differences.
Re:Next Generation - full speech recognition in a
on
Gnome 1.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
in the speech recognition department, all I need right away is a high priority STOP! and its equivalents, like AAAAAAARRRRGGHH!!
My long term goal is art - software is art; good programmers are artists. I want to create representations for software in ways that exposes its beauty to non-geeks. Really. All art was quite useless until the arrival of the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
PhaseOne's PowerPhase FX has the highest resolution, at 10,500 x 12,600 pixels, file sizes from 380 M at 8 bit to 1 GB in 64 bit. That, plus the cost of the medium format camera gives you this choice: a house, or digital photography.
If Linux is to replace anything, it won't be because it is Linux, it will be because of businesses applying Linux solutions - and, as businesses, they are subject to all the laws of corporations and money-making greed as is every other business. Which means, they will need to differentiate themselves. The more successful they become, the more they will tend to try to become old IBM or today's Microsoft - complete with proprietary extensions and the next decade's version of the connector conspiracy / secret APIs. It is inevitable.
Careful what you wish for!
STOP is all that matters in voice recognition today. And maybe automatically sending appropriate feedback when I curse.
I know this site is slow, but the server has a translucent case.
So what the hell are we complaining about again? The API is a tool of fascist oppression? gimme a break..
Ah well. back to iCab.
I would also like a device like this to power a larger display, say 4x6 inches on my desk, which I can use to display whatever I want, using wireless (or even wired) connection to my main computer, so I don't have to clutter my computer screen with status junk like clocks, system load, biff, stderr, whatever. The possibilities are endless.
Ah, but the existence of technology is the evolution of evolution itself. Humans exist to save all life on earth from extinction in the very long term. We're evolving ways to spread life through the galaxy. SETI is just a part of the beginning. And not everyone can work in planet maintenance; the talents of some are better suited to innovation.
Well, the winners write the history books. When the hard AI/LISP community finally recovers from their crushing, total defeat by neurofuzzy systems, maybe they'll do it.
But, even worse, worshipping technology in and of itself is stupid. Technology is a tool. Do you worship axes? If you worship computers enough to write a history of an obsolete OS, why not write the history of the axe?
Unix is the work of great artists. Art inspires us to greatness. The history of Unix shows us people on the edge, how they acted, what decisions they made, and how they felt about it. Important for those who want to be doing that today. The rest can just go back to playing Quake.
Anyone have the Unix Magic poster, with the wizard mixing everything up in the shell? That's where it's at with Unix. Nothing is better than Unix at this. It was undeniably brilliant. Tragically, it is out-dated. main(argc, argv) and stdin/stdout and ASCII pipes, command line arguments as ASCII data are unable to support new application concepts. OS-level IPC should at least be more structured than ASCII streams. When Unix purists say but that can be built upon what we have, they are acknowledging Miguel's criticism - Unix is not innovating, applications are. We need a new application architecture at the OS level that is as brilliant and innovative as shell programming was - but in this new era. We should be able to have the modularity and code-reuse of the shell (which, incidentally, is the longest living and most successful code resuse design) with more modern concepts and needs.
If you were being asked to invest, it sounds like you'd say no. Which is fine. But you are really talking about the short term viability of B2C, not the long term. There are consumers, there are businesses, therefore, B2C: one does not need to aspire to becoming Amazon; all you need are enough customers to keep you profitable. As a consultant, I'm sure you realize that efficient online marketplaces (called B2B) are what enable efficient B2C. So first forget about that remark you made about "more established competitors can make savings you cannot" -- for the long term. You would have to deny that B2B decreases transaction costs, aka the "economies of scale" in the physical world. The whole point of B2B is to break that down, and B2C will therefore benefit. The huge merger activity we are seing is evidence to the contrary - B2B has not worked yet. Not yet. All the B2B investors think that it will. Long term - we're talking five, ten, twenty, fifty years. Not tomorrow.
Second, the "major players" will never, ever, I repeat, never ever be able to provide worthwhile personalized service (despite AI and buying circles). Big organizations will be focused on the profitability of individual customers if they attempt to maintain a customer relationship rather than being an anonymous storefront. There is - and will be - tremendous opportunity for small B2C outfits organized around real personalized services for specific markets - as small as they wanna be - who tap into online marketplaces and specialize in custom, small quantity one-off manufacturing (remember that efficient B2B thing) to do what no Amazon could ever do. In this way the internet means the destruction of the mass market in the long term, which as B2C written all over it. But long term. Probably not in the next few years.
But you're right to criticize individual B2C outfits today, as B2B is so obviously where it's at, except for half.com, who claims they are C2C (and zero to $300 million in 9 months proves... um, something.)
So unless you simply want to convert heathens or ignorant mortals, just keep your good secrets to yourself. They don't care about them in the mainstream where it's just fashion and fad. The mainstream wants resume bullet points. Technology specifics don't matter.
So it seems that the bottom line is that the open source advocates/evangelists are taking it a bit too seriously. Selling this open source model by appealing to logic appears to be on shaky ground. How about a slick marketing camgaign instead, with lots of slo-mo, leather, and hypnotic music.
True; but all computers come with web browsers, and I don't see why JavaScript today is worse than BASIC in 1980.
Yes.. and it would have to be as revolutionary as the PARC GUI we all use today. I think we can reasonably say it won't be a WIMP (windows, icons, menu, pointer) interface - there are too many people thinking inside that box. The key invention was not the window, but the pointer "floating" above everything else. The pointer inspired mode-less programmg. The next interface revolution will involve a similar move outside the box and a host of resultant style shifts; with the PARC gui came event-driven programming, etc. In other words, anything less than such a shift is not a revolution but marketing hype.
desktop metaphor? I thought it was the prison metaphor.. I've been trying to telnet out..
you will see that as well. It's not like there will only be one display technology in "the future". blue LEDs are a short term problem. new & expensive. see blueled.com and Don Klipstein's LED page
Because people confuse equality with equivalence. It's very common, even among programmers.
As we have learned, you cannot un-invent technology. All we'll learn through "designer babies" is that they are anything but. We are not programmed and humans cannot control nature, because control is unnatural.
We can't stop people from wishing for designer babies. What we should be scared of is governments deciding that people should do certain things with such technology.... as always.
So.. cool technology: been there, done that. How about... a sustainable business for "new and interesting"...
But the reality is that a lot of C++ programming is going on right now by people who really shouldn't be doing it. And they're being paid much more than the cable tv installers or gas station attendants they may have been in a different economy. They might have even been hired to do Visual Basic, but now a project is in C++, and as any PHB knows, computers are just computers, C++ programmers are expensive (and this book is cheap!).
Experienced C++ coders - or at least bright coders - are just hard to find. Better to have a good intro for people who will be writing C++ anyway.
It's interesting to look at technologies which have been made illegal by .gov's at various times as one way to assess their importance or potential imact - like photocopiers, typewriters, computers, etc. They're almost all communications devices or weapons! Inventions like lightbulbs and refrigerators have never been illegal (to my knowledge).
Object *yadda = new Object();
vs:
Object *yadda = gtk_object_new();
C doesn't know you're trying to do OO, so it doesn't tell you when you forget. C++ will only let you instantiate a class according to the rules of its constructors. And then superconstructors and super destructors (which you remembered to declare virtual) are automatically invoked by C++, even for multiple inheritance and in the correct order. This you may easily have forgotten in implementing your constructors and destructors in C, bus error...
But then, with more manual control, you can define your own object paradigm. Go for metaclasses! fix the downcasting problem! RTTI with low overhead! reflection! introspection!
Those are kind of significant differences.
in the speech recognition department, all I need right away is a high priority STOP! and its equivalents, like AAAAAAARRRRGGHH!!
I don't know which window manager came out first with it
the Win dowShade system extension on the Mac, 1989.
My long term goal is art - software is art; good programmers are artists. I want to create representations for software in ways that exposes its beauty to non-geeks. Really. All art was quite useless until the arrival of the computer.