"Science never disproves anything any more than it proves anything."
Except for "global warming" and evolution of course.
It's interesting that you use those two examples. There are a variety of scientific (and unscientific) theories regarding "global warming" or "global climate change" which have attained varying levels of acceptance. There is also a widely accepted scientific theory of biological evolution on the Earth.
There is also ample evidence of global warming, as well as ample evidence of biological evolution. The evidence is just that. Collected observations of objective reality.
The number, variety and independent verification of those observations of "global warming" and "biological evolution" make it abundantly clear that they do, in fact, exist. However, the quality and predictive power of the above scientific *theories* might be a topic of some debate.
Collecting those observations and using them to create and improve scientific theories which describe those observations and the processes that cause them is called "science."
Somewhat tangentially, in order for a scientific theory(such as proton-proton fusion in the core of the sun) to be considered valid, it must be falsifiable.
Note that a scientific theory is not the same thing as is meant when referring to theory more generally.
Many people make the mistake of equating one to the other, often causing confusion.
Of course a US citizen must file with the IRS. I meant you can't collect taxes from citizens of other countries who are working in their own country.
Got you. But others probably don't know that expats (both citizens and green card holders) are required to file US tax returns. This is not true for most other countries. As I understand it, tax payments to the country in which the expat lives are fully tax deductible and most expats end up not paying any US income tax -- but they do have to file, as you noted.
That's OK. We'll just add it to the very long list of things you are not clear on.
Please. Publish that list. Do you really get off on this whole trolling business? My feathers aren't ruffled, I'm not annoyed or upset. More than anything, I'm just amused at the mixture of insults, poorly delineated thoughts and general silliness on your part.
In any case, why don't you go upstairs and raid mom's fridge while I discuss this stuff with the grownups. There's a good boy.
" The whole point of the TCP/IP suite, as well as the DARPA/NSFNet/Internet was to interconnect devices to facilitate communication of people. -implied content added
That's the part you don't quite seem to get. The difference between people and things seems to elude you.
I see. So your premise is that there is no *valid* purpose for computer networks other than to connect people to other people? Okay then. So, you've never heard of Networked Control Systems or automated data transfers or machine generated/updated databases or a myriad of other applications where people are completely irrelevant to the equation.
I'm guessing you're not quite that stupid, so I'm going to assume you're trolling and ignore you. Ciao! Have a great day!
"What is the purpose of connecting anything to a network? To communicate with other devices."
I'm learning something new from a guy with a ridiculously high SlashID now! Up until now I thought that the purpose of the internet was to allow people to communicate! Now I know it is was devices the whole time! RFC822 was just a ruse! That Tim Berners Lee guy? Just trying to throw us off the scent with has damn human readable content ruse! The ability to share documents? Again, it is about the devices sharing, not people! Network printers? Again, nobody was ever supposed to read the shit after it was printed!
Yes kid, you are clueless.
Again, I'm not clear on your point. I did get the ad-hominems (thanks for those, by the way -- that was very sweet!). And your attempt to ridicule me for my/. ID was especially humorous. What is more, at 47 years old, it is kind of nice to be called 'kid'.
While having (with appropriate security controls) control systems and other devices connected to a network (note, I did not say "the Internet" although in appropriate circumstances that can be useful too) can be extremely useful, I'm no fan of connecting every damn fool thing to the Internet. There's no reason why I need to monitor my microwave oven (someone might be making popcorn -- that must be stopped!) or make sure that the bleach levels in my washing machine are optimal while I'm at the movies.
Beyond that, go ahead and read the IP, UDP and TCP protocol specifications. I have -- and first did so nearly a decade *before* Berners-Lee, et. al. published the the HTTP protocol specification. The whole point of the TCP/IP suite, as well as the DARPA/NSFNet/Internet was to interconnect devices to facilitate communications. Having read and understood those documents over the last 20+ years, I can say with some confidence that they do not require that connected devices be "general purpose" or "human focused." New applications which take advantage of these protocols are developed all the time.
SMTP and HTTP are applications that ride on top of the TCP/IP suite. They are applications which were developed to enhance the capabilities of interconnected networks. Others, such as the RPC spec are designed specifically for device to device communications.
Leaving aside your sarcasm, ill humor and general negativity, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. Other than attacking me what, if anything, are you trying to add to this conversation? That's not a veiled slur, I really would like to understand. Please elucidate. Pretty please!
That was the point actually*, but thanks for playing!
*Putting a computer in something doesn't make the thing a computer
That is true. However, just because you embed a computer in something that's not a computer doesn't magically make that embedded computer something else. It's still a computer. And that computer will, assuming it has power applied and some code to execute, compute. I guess I'm not really clear on your point. Please elucidate. Thanks!
2) Those same idiots don't know the difference between an embedded system and a general purpose computer.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! I know the difference! But I'm not sure why that matters. Ask yourself this question (since you clearly haven't done so yet): What is the purpose of connecting anything to a network? To communicate with other devices. Whether those devices are toasters, routers, switches, fondue machines, laptops, automatic tie racks or smart phones is irrelevant. The raison d'etre for network connectivity is the same.
Here's a good question for you. Is a smartphone an embedded device or a general purpose computer? A better question: Does it really matter?
That sentence doesn't even parse, but no. On a completely unrelated note, please look up the definition of computing*. The intelligent members of the universe thank you.
* I'll even give you a hint. Cars aren't computers!
...(With more and more ways for hostile systems to access "internal" networks directly, network border security is increasingly becoming a useless strategy in general computing as well. Reflection attacks, where compromised internal hosts are used as stepping stones to get to the entire network, have been eating away at border gateway security for a long time anyway.)
By regulation, AC means that there's a state-sponsored oligopoly in place as well as state legislation/local politics making it difficult for start-ups. Regulation may not quite be the best word for it though.
You are correct, sir. That's local service franchising at best, corporate government capture at worst. That's not regulation.
Regulation would be requiring regular upgrades and cost controls.
A real "free market" in internet access would include a standard "last mile" supported with with ISPs paying user fees and competing on price and features, not a market in political influence.
No. The execs have realized that they can get fatter paychecks if they eliminate "cost centers" that don't deliver positive cash flow. You know, things like infrastructure upgrades, maintenance and customer service.. Anyone not working in the executive suite is viewed as a liability to the company and needs to be eliminated to reduce the pesky overhead involved in having real employees.
Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.
I'm not aware where they don't exist. Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not. With municipal telecom services, your taxes will be used to pay for part of the service, whether you want to or not.
Really? The choices I have (and yes, I do have a few) include a service that will not provide me with really high speed access, but will not block my traffic and gives me static IP addresses. The ones that will give me reasonably high speed access will arbitrarily block my traffic and will not provide me with static IP addresses. Yes, I can choose between different *crappy* services, but that's not really competition, because local government has given franchise rights and access to rights-of-way and chosen the winners for me. And I live in one of the most densely populated places in the US.
You are correct (as I implied above) that competition is often stifled by local governments, but that's more often due to regulatory capture and corruption, than regulation itself.
You do realize that even if local governments were to open it all up and say, "have at it boys! Set up your last mile services wherever you like, we want a 'free market'!" that having a half dozen or more companies putting in their own infrastructure (underground and pole mounted cables/fiber, head-end substations, etc, etc, etc) we'd have complete chaos with respect to tearing up the streets, selling rights-of-way, etc. And with all these companies putting in new infrastructure, there invariably will be "accidents" (of the unintentional and intentional types) which will interrupt service for their competition, as well as other unrelated services which share the same rights-of-way. I could go on, but I'm hoping you're starting to get the picture.
Real competition would come from a single, solid, redundant infrastructure providing high speed access to the last mile, with any ISP that wants to provide service to customers paying for access to the last mile and competing on price and features.
You're making the assumption that tax dollars will be used to pay to provide service. With the scenario above, ISP access fees could pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the last mile network, which would include a premium to pay the interest/principal on municipal bonds issued to build out the infrastructure. As time goes by part of that premium can be used for upgrades and enhancements. Given the amount of money the cable companies, LECs and other last mile providers are making, this is completely viable and only those who use the infrastructure would have to pay for it. That would be a free market solution.
Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the past 100 years or so, that's (municipal bonds with user fees to cover repayment, maintenance and upgrades) how large public works projects have been successfully done over and over again.
So, Are you a shill for the cable industry, a Grover Norquist lackey, or just uninformed?
Yes everyone can compete in the free market, except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.
You don't quite understand what a "free market" means. A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money. A "free market" is not a municipal government taking my money through taxation, handing it to their business cronies, and then providing shitty service.
And if you say that it's a "democratically elected government" and at least it's what the majority wants, let me point out that you could say the same thing about another municipal service provider: police. Apparently, Democrats believe that the same city government that is incapable of producing anything other than (according to them) a militarized, corrupt, and racist police department will suddenly manage to provide terrific telecom services.
You said:
A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money.
Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.
Computing power is not required to write prose. A keyboard, maybe.
Absolutely. Heck, you don't even need a battery or a power receptacle either. Just bang on the keyboard. You don't even have to connect it to anything. Sigh.
Umm the DOJ and Congress are at the same level as the president not under him. Maybe you should quit your McJob and go back to highschool.
Firstly, I didn't say anything about Congress. Secondly the DOJ (United States Department of Justice) is a Federal agency within the Executive branch (you know, the part that the President runs?).
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.
The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder.
I'm guessing that you mistakenly believe that the DOJ is actually the Judicial Branch of the US Government.
My friend, sometimes (and this appears to be one of them) it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Sigh. Why is it that so many of my countrymen seem to know so little about how our government is organized? It's rather depressing.
I think that the golden age of FOSS documentation is over. For a long time Linux and other FOSS docs were based on how commercial UNIX documentation was written, but slowly more and more developers aren't creating volumes of use or configuration docs in the UNIX model anymore, and as few UNIX-era developers work on Linux and other FOSS, there are less people who remember how those documents were made and why. I think that is what will hurt FOSS the most, simply being unable to figure out how to do the things that one wants to do because the docs don't exist.
That's one of the best jokes I've heard in a quite a while. And you don't even realize that it's funny, do you? I mean, it's really fabulous! I'm guessing that you were born after this quote was published:
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How
enthusiastic is our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many
years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines.
Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple
language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for
students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for
interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of
its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on
VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will
run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and
will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and
quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With
VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the
difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS
is that it's all there.
Now you got Windows 8 because desktops aren't as important a market as mobile phones and tablets.
Uhh, no. Don't run that garbage except for testing (and laughing at its craptastic-ness) on a VM. I'm sure that Satya Nadella does *all* his work on his Windows phone. Please.
Is your data in the cloud yet?
Uhh, no. why do I want my private data hosted on "someone else's servers?" (that's the phrase you should substitute when anyone *ever* says "the cloud")
Is your email client a web app?
No. And it won't be anytime soon. Why should I? Standalone mail clients have *enormously* richer feature sets.
Still sure about the future of the desktop?
Eventually, "the desktop" will be commodity monitors and user input devices which you plug your mobile device which contain all your data, applications and other stuff. As long as there are people who need to crunch numbers, write code, write prose, etc, etc, etc, there will always be a market for equipment to allow people to use computing power in a stationary location. The equipment, software, form factors and input devices may change, but there will always be equipment which provides "desktop" like functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
"Science never disproves anything any more than it proves anything."
Except for "global warming" and evolution of course.
It's interesting that you use those two examples. There are a variety of scientific (and unscientific) theories regarding "global warming" or "global climate change" which have attained varying levels of acceptance. There is also a widely accepted scientific theory of biological evolution on the Earth.
There is also ample evidence of global warming, as well as ample evidence of biological evolution. The evidence is just that. Collected observations of objective reality.
The number, variety and independent verification of those observations of "global warming" and "biological evolution" make it abundantly clear that they do, in fact, exist. However, the quality and predictive power of the above scientific *theories* might be a topic of some debate.
Collecting those observations and using them to create and improve scientific theories which describe those observations and the processes that cause them is called "science."
Get it now? Oh, and you're welcome.
Somewhat tangentially, in order for a scientific theory(such as proton-proton fusion in the core of the sun) to be considered valid, it must be falsifiable.
Note that a scientific theory is not the same thing as is meant when referring to theory more generally.
Many people make the mistake of equating one to the other, often causing confusion.
You idiot. Glaciers are ice. Ice floats. Stupid American on slashdot. Marvel I know.
Apparently, stupidity extends to you as well.
Personally I prefer the Hurdy Gurdy Man.
Cool. However, we were talking about fiction written by L. Sprague deCamp, rather than music. Not sure if that's really comparable.
Further, if individuals need to do so, shouldn't corporations as well? Since they are "people" and all. Just sayin'.
Of course a US citizen must file with the IRS. I meant you can't collect taxes from citizens of other countries who are working in their own country.
Got you. But others probably don't know that expats (both citizens and green card holders) are required to file US tax returns. This is not true for most other countries. As I understand it, tax payments to the country in which the expat lives are fully tax deductible and most expats end up not paying any US income tax -- but they do have to file, as you noted.
Do they want to collect taxes form people who work in other countries? Good luck with that.
Actually, that's the law
That's OK. We'll just add it to the very long list of things you are not clear on.
Please. Publish that list. Do you really get off on this whole trolling business? My feathers aren't ruffled, I'm not annoyed or upset. More than anything, I'm just amused at the mixture of insults, poorly delineated thoughts and general silliness on your part.
In any case, why don't you go upstairs and raid mom's fridge while I discuss this stuff with the grownups. There's a good boy.
That's the part you don't quite seem to get. The difference between people and things seems to elude you.
I see. So your premise is that there is no *valid* purpose for computer networks other than to connect people to other people? Okay then. So, you've never heard of Networked Control Systems or automated data transfers or machine generated/updated databases or a myriad of other applications where people are completely irrelevant to the equation.
I'm guessing you're not quite that stupid, so I'm going to assume you're trolling and ignore you. Ciao! Have a great day!
Bonus points for quoting one of my favorite stories.
It is a good one. Although, I'd more highly recommend The Gnarly Man if you haven't read it.
I'm learning something new from a guy with a ridiculously high SlashID now! Up until now I thought that the purpose of the internet was to allow people to communicate! Now I know it is was devices the whole time! RFC822 was just a ruse! That Tim Berners Lee guy? Just trying to throw us off the scent with has damn human readable content ruse! The ability to share documents? Again, it is about the devices sharing, not people! Network printers? Again, nobody was ever supposed to read the shit after it was printed! Yes kid, you are clueless.
Again, I'm not clear on your point. I did get the ad-hominems (thanks for those, by the way -- that was very sweet!). And your attempt to ridicule me for my /. ID was especially humorous. What is more, at 47 years old, it is kind of nice to be called 'kid'.
While having (with appropriate security controls) control systems and other devices connected to a network (note, I did not say "the Internet" although in appropriate circumstances that can be useful too) can be extremely useful, I'm no fan of connecting every damn fool thing to the Internet. There's no reason why I need to monitor my microwave oven (someone might be making popcorn -- that must be stopped!) or make sure that the bleach levels in my washing machine are optimal while I'm at the movies.
Beyond that, go ahead and read the IP, UDP and TCP protocol specifications. I have -- and first did so nearly a decade *before* Berners-Lee, et. al. published the the HTTP protocol specification. The whole point of the TCP/IP suite, as well as the DARPA/NSFNet/Internet was to interconnect devices to facilitate communications. Having read and understood those documents over the last 20+ years, I can say with some confidence that they do not require that connected devices be "general purpose" or "human focused." New applications which take advantage of these protocols are developed all the time.
SMTP and HTTP are applications that ride on top of the TCP/IP suite. They are applications which were developed to enhance the capabilities of interconnected networks. Others, such as the RPC spec are designed specifically for device to device communications.
Leaving aside your sarcasm, ill humor and general negativity, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. Other than attacking me what, if anything, are you trying to add to this conversation? That's not a veiled slur, I really would like to understand. Please elucidate. Pretty please!
He had bought a gun to take care of business, but really who brings a gun to a dinosaur fight?
Get real. Everyone knows you need A Gun For Dinosaur. I wonder if de Camp was arrested for this story. Sigh.
That was the point actually*, but thanks for playing! *Putting a computer in something doesn't make the thing a computer
That is true. However, just because you embed a computer in something that's not a computer doesn't magically make that embedded computer something else. It's still a computer. And that computer will, assuming it has power applied and some code to execute, compute. I guess I'm not really clear on your point. Please elucidate. Thanks!
2) Those same idiots don't know the difference between an embedded system and a general purpose computer.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! I know the difference! But I'm not sure why that matters. Ask yourself this question (since you clearly haven't done so yet): What is the purpose of connecting anything to a network? To communicate with other devices. Whether those devices are toasters, routers, switches, fondue machines, laptops, automatic tie racks or smart phones is irrelevant. The raison d'etre for network connectivity is the same.
Here's a good question for you. Is a smartphone an embedded device or a general purpose computer? A better question: Does it really matter?
That sentence doesn't even parse, but no. On a completely unrelated note, please look up the definition of computing*. The intelligent members of the universe thank you. * I'll even give you a hint. Cars aren't computers!
That's true. But How many computers are embedded in cars?.
...(With more and more ways for hostile systems to access "internal" networks directly, network border security is increasingly becoming a useless strategy in general computing as well. Reflection attacks, where compromised internal hosts are used as stepping stones to get to the entire network, have been eating away at border gateway security for a long time anyway.)
Not useless, just not enough. cf. Defense in-depth.
By regulation, AC means that there's a state-sponsored oligopoly in place as well as state legislation/local politics making it difficult for start-ups. Regulation may not quite be the best word for it though.
You are correct, sir. That's local service franchising at best, corporate government capture at worst. That's not regulation.
Regulation would be requiring regular upgrades and cost controls.
A real "free market" in internet access would include a standard "last mile" supported with with ISPs paying user fees and competing on price and features, not a market in political influence.
No. The execs have realized that they can get fatter paychecks if they eliminate "cost centers" that don't deliver positive cash flow. You know, things like infrastructure upgrades, maintenance and customer service.. Anyone not working in the executive suite is viewed as a liability to the company and needs to be eliminated to reduce the pesky overhead involved in having real employees.
There. FTFY.
Over regulation? I'm confused. Please explain about that? At least in the US, ISPs are *less* regulated than ever.
I'm not aware where they don't exist. Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not. With municipal telecom services, your taxes will be used to pay for part of the service, whether you want to or not.
Really? The choices I have (and yes, I do have a few) include a service that will not provide me with really high speed access, but will not block my traffic and gives me static IP addresses. The ones that will give me reasonably high speed access will arbitrarily block my traffic and will not provide me with static IP addresses. Yes, I can choose between different *crappy* services, but that's not really competition, because local government has given franchise rights and access to rights-of-way and chosen the winners for me. And I live in one of the most densely populated places in the US.
You are correct (as I implied above) that competition is often stifled by local governments, but that's more often due to regulatory capture and corruption, than regulation itself.
You do realize that even if local governments were to open it all up and say, "have at it boys! Set up your last mile services wherever you like, we want a 'free market'!" that having a half dozen or more companies putting in their own infrastructure (underground and pole mounted cables/fiber, head-end substations, etc, etc, etc) we'd have complete chaos with respect to tearing up the streets, selling rights-of-way, etc. And with all these companies putting in new infrastructure, there invariably will be "accidents" (of the unintentional and intentional types) which will interrupt service for their competition, as well as other unrelated services which share the same rights-of-way. I could go on, but I'm hoping you're starting to get the picture.
Real competition would come from a single, solid, redundant infrastructure providing high speed access to the last mile, with any ISP that wants to provide service to customers paying for access to the last mile and competing on price and features.
You're making the assumption that tax dollars will be used to pay to provide service. With the scenario above, ISP access fees could pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the last mile network, which would include a premium to pay the interest/principal on municipal bonds issued to build out the infrastructure. As time goes by part of that premium can be used for upgrades and enhancements. Given the amount of money the cable companies, LECs and other last mile providers are making, this is completely viable and only those who use the infrastructure would have to pay for it. That would be a free market solution.
Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the past 100 years or so, that's (municipal bonds with user fees to cover repayment, maintenance and upgrades) how large public works projects have been successfully done over and over again.
So, Are you a shill for the cable industry, a Grover Norquist lackey, or just uninformed?
You don't quite understand what a "free market" means. A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money. A "free market" is not a municipal government taking my money through taxation, handing it to their business cronies, and then providing shitty service.
And if you say that it's a "democratically elected government" and at least it's what the majority wants, let me point out that you could say the same thing about another municipal service provider: police. Apparently, Democrats believe that the same city government that is incapable of producing anything other than (according to them) a militarized, corrupt, and racist police department will suddenly manage to provide terrific telecom services.
You said:
Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.
Computing power is not required to write prose. A keyboard, maybe.
Absolutely. Heck, you don't even need a battery or a power receptacle either. Just bang on the keyboard. You don't even have to connect it to anything. Sigh.
Umm the DOJ and Congress are at the same level as the president not under him. Maybe you should quit your McJob and go back to highschool.
Firstly, I didn't say anything about Congress. Secondly the DOJ (United States Department of Justice) is a Federal agency within the Executive branch (you know, the part that the President runs?).
From the Wikipedia Page:
I'm guessing that you mistakenly believe that the DOJ is actually the Judicial Branch of the US Government.
My friend, sometimes (and this appears to be one of them) it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Sigh. Why is it that so many of my countrymen seem to know so little about how our government is organized? It's rather depressing.
I think that the golden age of FOSS documentation is over. For a long time Linux and other FOSS docs were based on how commercial UNIX documentation was written, but slowly more and more developers aren't creating volumes of use or configuration docs in the UNIX model anymore, and as few UNIX-era developers work on Linux and other FOSS, there are less people who remember how those documents were made and why. I think that is what will hurt FOSS the most, simply being unable to figure out how to do the things that one wants to do because the docs don't exist.
That's one of the best jokes I've heard in a quite a while. And you don't even realize that it's funny, do you? I mean, it's really fabulous! I'm guessing that you were born after this quote was published:
Now you got Windows 8 because desktops aren't as important a market as mobile phones and tablets.
Uhh, no. Don't run that garbage except for testing (and laughing at its craptastic-ness) on a VM. I'm sure that Satya Nadella does *all* his work on his Windows phone. Please.
Is your data in the cloud yet?
Uhh, no. why do I want my private data hosted on "someone else's servers?" (that's the phrase you should substitute when anyone *ever* says "the cloud")
Is your email client a web app?
No. And it won't be anytime soon. Why should I? Standalone mail clients have *enormously* richer feature sets.
Still sure about the future of the desktop?
Eventually, "the desktop" will be commodity monitors and user input devices which you plug your mobile device which contain all your data, applications and other stuff. As long as there are people who need to crunch numbers, write code, write prose, etc, etc, etc, there will always be a market for equipment to allow people to use computing power in a stationary location. The equipment, software, form factors and input devices may change, but there will always be equipment which provides "desktop" like functionality.