I agree. But one big lesson you can learn from the Cube is to "cheat" on the power supply. ie, make it a massive external brick that gives off a fair bit of heat, has no fan, and sits under your desk.
That's half the magic behind the Cube's size and silence.
I'd love to see a third party create fanless power supplies that are plug-and-play replacements for the PC world.
Re:Skinnable Functionality...what else is new?
on
The Problem Of Developing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, one thing that is new is the.NET Framework SDK. For the first time, ALL data types and system classes are identical for.NET programmers, regardless of language.
COM+ tried to do something like this, but there were always some data type and wrapper issues with Win32, and one language or another (usually C++) came out "ahead" not in terms of programmer preference, but in terms of it couldn't technically be used for one reason or another. Well, without some major hackage anyways. For example, firing up the VB6 IDE allowed you to turn around a quick, data-enabled app more quickly than the equivalent VC++ app, though you were stuck with a kludgy language and using previously built DLLs from other languages involved a lot of work. On the other hand, if you wanted to build a system service, C++ made it easier. But if you wanted to write server-side scripting, you were back to bastardized VBScript syntax. Etc. Your question was "how does using a CLR make this any different?", and I think this is one very clear way. Of course, it comes at a small peformance price (and certain C programmers will claim some "dumbing down" or lowest-common-denominator drawbacks have been incurred).
Re:Pet Peeves/requests of an HCI designer
on
Computing Pet Peeves?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The Escape key should always do just that.
I'm pretty sure "Escape" means "begin an escape sequence" (ie, ASC 27 xx xx xx). While we're on the topic of legacy key names though...
The Return key doesn't return anywhere. The Scroll Lock key doesn't prevent scrolling. The Break key doesn't break. The Print Screen key doesn't print.
We forget about those crazy, legacy key names and ignore them, but I'm always impressed how new users gravitate towards them and (reasonably) expect big results!
1) Inexpensive electric clothing for motorcyclists have been around for many, many years. It's easy to do when you're riding on top of a big, heavy, high-current battery.
2) You might consider letting HTML word wrap your posts for you. It looks better and makes them easier to read.
I ride year round and it's frequently cold enough to put on my electric vest under my motorcycle jacket. These things are a life-saver and they're pretty low-tech, with fine wires laid out in an electric blanket configuration surrounding your torso. Of course, I guess this approach to keeping warm is much easier to pull off when you're riding a high-current, 400+ pound battery on wheels...
Most software runs under the control of another piece of software. For example, desktop apps (like Excel) tend to run under an OS (also a bonafide piece of software). So extending this another layer deep by having scripts and macros and worksheets execute under a dekstop app (that executes under an OS) seems pretty normal.
What MediaPlayer is doing is nothing new -- it's equivalent to nearly every other player out there with CDDB (or equiv) capabilities with client-side caching so you don't have to hit the internet database repeatedly for your collection of tunes. BFD. It's not uploading anything back to anyone.
Of course, mainstream media can spoonfeed the word/concept "log" (eg. history, audit, etc.) easier than it can "cache".
A fork doesn't have the ability to change function - it's always a fork.
"Fork" is what it IS, not its function. Likewise, "console" and "joystick" are what they ARE, not their functions.
Some common fork functions... - piece or scoop food with, on way to mouth - back scratcher - faux-finish painting tool - screwdriver (on edge) - modern art component - roach clip
And I'm sure each passing day, people invent new functions for what is known as a "fork".
SETI should wait until we have our own world's problems figured out.
Humans are made of meat, and sure, cancer is a problem we'd like to solve. But humans are also uniquely explorers and thinkers, and Not Knowing(tm) IS genuinely one of our problems. Some believe that SETI is a step towards solving that problem. File it under "motivation" or "purpose" (by simplying "knowing").
A future generation may answer the eternal question for us. And if they do, every generation that follows will be affected in their daily outlook, their goals, their attitudes, their comforts, their concerns, etc. That's at least as profound as a cure for cancer.
Apple makes the vast majority of its revenue through hardware sales, somewhere around 90-95%.
Your numbers are a bit pessimistic here. It's easy to find the data on this, but here are Apple's Financial Data for Q1 2002. "Software and other" accounts for approximately 11% of Apple's $1 billion in revenue for that quarter. Plus, "perhipherals and other hardware" accounts for an additional 12%. (Apple's peripherals are relevant and sexy and will continue to sell to PC owners and existing Apple owners.) So we can account for up to maybe 23% in non-hardware revenues (ie, non iMac, iBook, PowerMac). Will iMac, iBook, and Power Mac sales drop to 0 overnight? Of course not -- they have a dedicated following who are not going to immediately jump ship and start buying beige commodity PC clones.
Sadly, people line up overnight to buy a Micosoft OS. I predict that there would be far longer lines for OS X for PC. This would be a new, very profitable part of their offering.
the unit cost of an operating system is much less than the cost of a hardware box
And the per unit profit of an operating system is much higher than the profit on a hardware box.
No company can gp to Wall Street and say: I'm going to chop my annual revenues down from $8 billion to $500 million.
First of all, the Mac hardware zealots of the world will not start buying PC clones overnight. Secondly, I've shown you that your revenue ratio of (iMac+iBook+PowerMac+PowerBook)/Total is way off. So perhaps we see Apples' revenues cut in half. And a lot of hardware engineers laid off. And more software engineers hired. And their marketing magic dedicated entirely to OS X. Yes, this is scary for an investor, but the other side of the story is that margins and gross profits would be way up, by multiples, and the magic "profit per diluted share" and similar numbers may look stronger than Apple has had in a long time.
Plus you'd have an immense renewed interest in the developer community to create apps for OS X. Windows developers and publishers who have the benefit of a ridiculously huge installed hardware base could now try their hand at OS X development with less risk than ever before.
If Apple really believed in this approach, I'm certain they could spin it for their shareholders. They've been around for a few decades now and had their share of crazy company announcements without destroying themselves.
You're right about "real" TRS-80's using a Z80 CPU, but the Tandy Model 100 didn't use a Z80 at all. It ran an 8085, like the processor used in the Mars Soujourner robot. Instruction sets are similar though between the Z80, 8080, and 8085.
And while we're talking subtle CPU differences... the Game Boy does not use a Z80 either, but its CPU's instruction set is a close subset of it, only with a bunch of registers and opcodes removed. This is/was very frustrating for a Z80 programmer at first! Sega's (color) GameGear from the same era did use a true Z80 processor.
Look, I know that. You know that. A lot of people who have watched and analyzed and grokked things Free and Open know this. The key difference you're missing is that I'm afraid mainstream media or business people (who don't "get it") will receive the wrong impression when they read:
"And in Linux news today, another company whose business was selling services to support Linux and free software [hard to get those capitals across on MSNBC] applications has filed for bankruptcy. It's not known how this will impact the countless other companies who relied on these services. Company executives could not be reached for comment, but industry insider and Linux media guru Rob Malda was quoted as saying, 'Well, you get what you pay for.'"
Exaggeration, yeah probably and hey, CmdrTaco is entitled to his opinion. God knows he's lived the hell that he wished for on/. and I thank the guy immensely for it. Personally, I don't hold his comment against him in any way -- I just hope someone else doesn't use it as fuel against the business of Linux and Open Source.
CmdrTaco wrote:
but I also don't think it's the huge deal that others are making of it. Especially considering projects aren't paying for the free service. You get what you pay for after all.
What the heck kind of attitude is this for the founder of a pro-Open, pro-Linux website, CmdrTaco?! I took a quick diff of the terms of use changes, and you're right, it's not a big deal. But reinforcing the myth of "you get what you pay for" doesn't help traditionally minded people embrace new paradigms such as Open and Free. Tsk tsk.
Power isn't the only thing that can damage or cause discomfort, eye strain, headaches, seizures, etc. Research and even a few things that made it to mass-consumption have shown that rapidly flashing or rythmically scanning a "safe" (read: low-power) light can be dangerous. Additional dangers are possible in a stereoscopic scenario, where you can present fields that cause the eyes to converge or diverge on a target too much. (And this is under pure software control!) If you watched the strobing-eye robots in Japan or were a developer for the Nintendo Virtual Boy, you'll know what I'm talking about!
My point is that burning away the retinal surface isn't the only thing to be concerned about.
EverCrack, just like real crack hits the lower classes the hardest. for shame.
Who are you implying should feel shame? When a developer creates an amazing, epic game that gets consumed by people with low incomes (among many others), should the developer feel shame?
I don't think so. Unless the developer targeted that specific income group or a weakness of people with low incomes. eg. false hope of getting out of their situation, like lottery tickets supposedly do. I don't think EQ or any game really claims to offer hope or an improved lifestyle though.
Old Mac, sure, but why a new iMac G4?!
on
Linux on the iMac G4
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I can understand why someone with an older Mac (ie, sunk cost) would investigate running Linux. Of course, the end result will be be a more expensive box than an equivalent Intel or AMD Linux box, but with your money sunk into a G3/G4, what else can you do? What I don't understand is why someone would buy a brand new, off the shelf iMac G4 and immediately install Linux. Okay, it's cool looking and unique and those are damn fine 1337 h4x0r characteristics, but think of the coinage! Was Linux their intention before buying the iMac G4? Maybe I'm missing something compelling on the Mac Linux front, but why are there people doing this?!
1. 80% of Java coding right now doesn't take place on Windows platforms.
2..Net only runs on Windows platforms.
3. Thus,.Net is not in any way, shape, or form going to hurt Java.
Check your rules of deduction there, friend. Assertion 2 is true now, but we've already seen signs of.Net running on non-windows platforms. So I'd assert:
2a..Net may run on non-Windows platforms in the future.
Of course, I'd then suggest that you change your conclusion to:
3. Thus,.Net may affect Java in the future.
Cringely earns the title "hacker"...
on
Cringely's Bank Shot
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...in my book for that stunt. Yeah, he's full of wind and lofty opinions and predictions. But it takes a proper hacker to roll up the sleeves, climb a mountain and a big tree, simply to install a wireless hack.
It's probably not worth the benefits it your $50/hr programmer has to spend double the time to write your programs.
Very true. So don't hire an imperative specialist to write functional code! If you believe that it would still take a functional specialist twice as long to write functional code then I'd like to get a link to some supporting evidence or case studies.
If people taking a disliking to C# they could always look forward to the upcoming E#. There are suspicions that this language might turn out to be vaporware, however.
There's nothing vaporous about E#, however I do know that enthusiasts (in the music field field, at least) commonly refer to it as F.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. But one big lesson you can learn from the Cube is to "cheat" on the power supply. ie, make it a massive external brick that gives off a fair bit of heat, has no fan, and sits under your desk.
That's half the magic behind the Cube's size and silence.
I'd love to see a third party create fanless power supplies that are plug-and-play replacements for the PC world.
Well, one thing that is new is the .NET Framework SDK. For the first time, ALL data types and system classes are identical for .NET programmers, regardless of language.
COM+ tried to do something like this, but there were always some data type and wrapper issues with Win32, and one language or another (usually C++) came out "ahead" not in terms of programmer preference, but in terms of it couldn't technically be used for one reason or another. Well, without some major hackage anyways. For example, firing up the VB6 IDE allowed you to turn around a quick, data-enabled app more quickly than the equivalent VC++ app, though you were stuck with a kludgy language and using previously built DLLs from other languages involved a lot of work. On the other hand, if you wanted to build a system service, C++ made it easier. But if you wanted to write server-side scripting, you were back to bastardized VBScript syntax. Etc. Your question was "how does using a CLR make this any different?", and I think this is one very clear way. Of course, it comes at a small peformance price (and certain C programmers will claim some "dumbing down" or lowest-common-denominator drawbacks have been incurred).
The Escape key should always do just that.
I'm pretty sure "Escape" means "begin an escape sequence" (ie, ASC 27 xx xx xx). While we're on the topic of legacy key names though...
The Return key doesn't return anywhere.
The Scroll Lock key doesn't prevent scrolling.
The Break key doesn't break.
The Print Screen key doesn't print.
We forget about those crazy, legacy key names and ignore them, but I'm always impressed how new users gravitate towards them and (reasonably) expect big results!
Two things...
1) Inexpensive electric clothing for motorcyclists have been around for many, many years. It's easy to do when you're riding on top of a big, heavy, high-current battery.
2) You might consider letting HTML word wrap your posts for you. It looks better and makes them easier to read.
I ride year round and it's frequently cold enough to put on my electric vest under my motorcycle jacket. These things are a life-saver and they're pretty low-tech, with fine wires laid out in an electric blanket configuration surrounding your torso. Of course, I guess this approach to keeping warm is much easier to pull off when you're riding a high-current, 400+ pound battery on wheels...
Most software runs under the control of another piece of software. For example, desktop apps (like Excel) tend to run under an OS (also a bonafide piece of software). So extending this another layer deep by having scripts and macros and worksheets execute under a dekstop app (that executes under an OS) seems pretty normal.
Mod me down as redudant if you like, but props to chrisd for that one.
What MediaPlayer is doing is nothing new -- it's equivalent to nearly every other player out there with CDDB (or equiv) capabilities with client-side caching so you don't have to hit the internet database repeatedly for your collection of tunes. BFD. It's not uploading anything back to anyone.
Of course, mainstream media can spoonfeed the word/concept "log" (eg. history, audit, etc.) easier than it can "cache".
A fork doesn't have the ability to change function - it's always a fork.
"Fork" is what it IS, not its function. Likewise, "console" and "joystick" are what they ARE, not their functions.
Some common fork functions...
- piece or scoop food with, on way to mouth
- back scratcher
- faux-finish painting tool
- screwdriver (on edge)
- modern art component
- roach clip
And I'm sure each passing day, people invent new functions for what is known as a "fork".
Operator: Main LCD turn on
Cat: All my fonts are not belong to Tempest
Captain: What you say!!
Captain: You know what you doing
SETI should wait until we have our own world's problems figured out.
Humans are made of meat, and sure, cancer is a problem we'd like to solve. But humans are also uniquely explorers and thinkers, and Not Knowing(tm) IS genuinely one of our problems. Some believe that SETI is a step towards solving that problem. File it under "motivation" or "purpose" (by simplying "knowing").
A future generation may answer the eternal question for us. And if they do, every generation that follows will be affected in their daily outlook, their goals, their attitudes, their comforts, their concerns, etc. That's at least as profound as a cure for cancer.
One person asked if it was prototype hardware that you couldnt buy yet because it was so fast.
Tell that person I have some waterfront real estate to sell them. Chance of a lifetime.
Apple makes the vast majority of its revenue through hardware sales, somewhere around 90-95%.
Your numbers are a bit pessimistic here. It's easy to find the data on this, but here are Apple's Financial Data for Q1 2002. "Software and other" accounts for approximately 11% of Apple's $1 billion in revenue for that quarter. Plus, "perhipherals and other hardware" accounts for an additional 12%. (Apple's peripherals are relevant and sexy and will continue to sell to PC owners and existing Apple owners.) So we can account for up to maybe 23% in non-hardware revenues (ie, non iMac, iBook, PowerMac). Will iMac, iBook, and Power Mac sales drop to 0 overnight? Of course not -- they have a dedicated following who are not going to immediately jump ship and start buying beige commodity PC clones.
Sadly, people line up overnight to buy a Micosoft OS. I predict that there would be far longer lines for OS X for PC. This would be a new, very profitable part of their offering.
the unit cost of an operating system is much less than the cost of a hardware box
And the per unit profit of an operating system is much higher than the profit on a hardware box.
No company can gp to Wall Street and say: I'm going to chop my annual revenues down from $8 billion to $500 million.
First of all, the Mac hardware zealots of the world will not start buying PC clones overnight. Secondly, I've shown you that your revenue ratio of (iMac+iBook+PowerMac+PowerBook)/Total is way off. So perhaps we see Apples' revenues cut in half. And a lot of hardware engineers laid off. And more software engineers hired. And their marketing magic dedicated entirely to OS X. Yes, this is scary for an investor, but the other side of the story is that margins and gross profits would be way up, by multiples, and the magic "profit per diluted share" and similar numbers may look stronger than Apple has had in a long time.
Plus you'd have an immense renewed interest in the developer community to create apps for OS X. Windows developers and publishers who have the benefit of a ridiculously huge installed hardware base could now try their hand at OS X development with less risk than ever before.
If Apple really believed in this approach, I'm certain they could spin it for their shareholders. They've been around for a few decades now and had their share of crazy company announcements without destroying themselves.
I remember the program that played "Bicycle Built for Two" on the 1541 disk drive motors. Sound quality sucked, sure, but DAMN, that was cool.
You're right about "real" TRS-80's using a Z80 CPU, but the Tandy Model 100 didn't use a Z80 at all. It ran an 8085, like the processor used in the Mars Soujourner robot. Instruction sets are similar though between the Z80, 8080, and 8085.
And while we're talking subtle CPU differences... the Game Boy does not use a Z80 either, but its CPU's instruction set is a close subset of it, only with a bunch of registers and opcodes removed. This is/was very frustrating for a Z80 programmer at first! Sega's (color) GameGear from the same era did use a true Z80 processor.
Look, I know that. You know that. A lot of people who have watched and analyzed and grokked things Free and Open know this. The key difference you're missing is that I'm afraid mainstream media or business people (who don't "get it") will receive the wrong impression when they read:
/. and I thank the guy immensely for it. Personally, I don't hold his comment against him in any way -- I just hope someone else doesn't use it as fuel against the business of Linux and Open Source.
"And in Linux news today, another company whose business was selling services to support Linux and free software [hard to get those capitals across on MSNBC] applications has filed for bankruptcy. It's not known how this will impact the countless other companies who relied on these services. Company executives could not be reached for comment, but industry insider and Linux media guru Rob Malda was quoted as saying, 'Well, you get what you pay for.'"
Exaggeration, yeah probably and hey, CmdrTaco is entitled to his opinion. God knows he's lived the hell that he wished for on
CmdrTaco wrote:
but I also don't think it's the huge deal that others are making of it. Especially considering projects aren't paying for the free service. You get what you pay for after all.
What the heck kind of attitude is this for the founder of a pro-Open, pro-Linux website, CmdrTaco?! I took a quick diff of the terms of use changes, and you're right, it's not a big deal. But reinforcing the myth of "you get what you pay for" doesn't help traditionally minded people embrace new paradigms such as Open and Free. Tsk tsk.
Power isn't the only thing that can damage or cause discomfort, eye strain, headaches, seizures, etc. Research and even a few things that made it to mass-consumption have shown that rapidly flashing or rythmically scanning a "safe" (read: low-power) light can be dangerous. Additional dangers are possible in a stereoscopic scenario, where you can present fields that cause the eyes to converge or diverge on a target too much. (And this is under pure software control!) If you watched the strobing-eye robots in Japan or were a developer for the Nintendo Virtual Boy, you'll know what I'm talking about!
My point is that burning away the retinal surface isn't the only thing to be concerned about.
This story at The Age shows that the Defence Signals Directorate listens to just about every bit of communications in Australia.
The story is interesting, and quite believable, but let's be clear here... it doesn't show anything.
EverCrack, just like real crack hits the lower classes the hardest. for shame.
Who are you implying should feel shame? When a developer creates an amazing, epic game that gets consumed by people with low incomes (among many others), should the developer feel shame?
I don't think so. Unless the developer targeted that specific income group or a weakness of people with low incomes. eg. false hope of getting out of their situation, like lottery tickets supposedly do. I don't think EQ or any game really claims to offer hope or an improved lifestyle though.
I can understand why someone with an older Mac (ie, sunk cost) would investigate running Linux. Of course, the end result will be be a more expensive box than an equivalent Intel or AMD Linux box, but with your money sunk into a G3/G4, what else can you do? What I don't understand is why someone would buy a brand new, off the shelf iMac G4 and immediately install Linux. Okay, it's cool looking and unique and those are damn fine 1337 h4x0r characteristics, but think of the coinage! Was Linux their intention before buying the iMac G4? Maybe I'm missing something compelling on the Mac Linux front, but why are there people doing this?!
1. 80% of Java coding right now doesn't take place on Windows platforms. .Net only runs on Windows platforms.
.Net is not in any way, shape, or form going to hurt Java.
.Net running on non-windows platforms. So I'd assert:
.Net may run on non-Windows platforms in the future.
.Net may affect Java in the future.
2.
3. Thus,
Check your rules of deduction there, friend. Assertion 2 is true now, but we've already seen signs of
2a.
Of course, I'd then suggest that you change your conclusion to:
3. Thus,
...in my book for that stunt. Yeah, he's full of wind and lofty opinions and predictions. But it takes a proper hacker to roll up the sleeves, climb a mountain and a big tree, simply to install a wireless hack.
He da man.
It's probably not worth the benefits it your $50/hr programmer has to spend double the time to write your programs.
Very true. So don't hire an imperative specialist to write functional code! If you believe that it would still take a functional specialist twice as long to write functional code then I'd like to get a link to some supporting evidence or case studies.
If people taking a disliking to C# they could always look forward to the upcoming E#. There are suspicions that this language might turn out to be vaporware, however.
There's nothing vaporous about E#, however I do know that enthusiasts (in the music field field, at least) commonly refer to it as F.