LOL, no I think you're the one who can't be bothered to actually do any computer science (eg: work) and just wants to engage in mental masturbation all day.
Yes, there are coders that learn scripting languages and basic programming... but even basic programming requires knowledge of how computers work.
As you point out, programming is essential to your computer science curriculem, so your fantasies about having "Computer science" without programmign are just as absurd to your college as they are to me.
When you find monkeys that can do your programming for you, have fun.
But the fact of the matter is, there is more to software development than just programming, and unfortunately, computer science programs tend to focus too much on theory and not enough on the practice of software development.
By the way, you can't seem to decide if you agree with me or not-- all these "Computer scientists" who say they want to get away from computers and just work with paper are the problem here... yet you acknowledge my point-- a quicksort on paper is beyond meaningless- you'll never notice your errors, and it does nothing.
And pretty useless. I'm glad to see that UCB hasn't regressed.
It would be nice if colleges had team programming and simulted an actual software development project at least once-- and let people experiment with team programming, extreme programming, and then traditional design, develop, test programming....
Even better would be a programming assignment that changed as the students were implementing it!
All that could be done in one class, one semester and help them a lot.
Berkeley is one of the higher rated CS programs in the country, in the top ten if I recall.
And it seems like its not an ivory tower theory only program either... so I don't know what these "I don't want to get my hands dirty with the monkeys" guys are smoking.
You guys have never actually written a commercial program, have you?
If you think you can sit an design a program and have "monkeys" as you called them-- code it. Then you're deluded.
IF you think this is a superior way to go about it, then you're confused beyond redemption.
Wait til you actually write software for a commercial endeavor, and then lets see what you think about having "monkeys" write your code.
The reason those guys in india are getting so much work is that they are COMPUTER SCIENTISTS . They are PROGRAMMERS. They have Masters degrees just as good as yours and all the theory you could want.
They don't need you to design it for them, they can do that themselves.
In the olden days the lowest level person in the software department was the programming analyist-- all they did was figure out what the customer wanted and communicate that to the programmers-- you know, the ones with the theory and the ability, to write programs.
You want to reduce the output of CS programs to that? To people who can't program, but can merely tell others what to do, and get coffee for them while they are at it?
Get this straight: you CANNOT design software without knowing how to write it. And even in my day CS programs didn't teach you enoug habout how to write it.... now they apparently teach you even less.
Knowing hte language is not enough-- knowing how to work with people and how to design programs that are implemented by groups of people and do so well-- is a whole different skills set, that has nothing to do with CS theory, but that will bite you in the ass and make your products suck really bad if you just sit back and "Design" while letting "monkey's" implement it.
If you are a CS graduate, then you would have been better off getting a job instead--- clearly that college has made you worse, not better.
You have NO CLUE what it takes to make high quality products.
I've spent most of my career in software development, and I know its hard-- even experienced professionals have trouble making high quality products. Some "designer" who wants to sit back and direct people would be quickly ostracised and then ignored by a team of Computer Scientists who knew what they were doing.
And when you called us "Monkeys" you'd be fired.
You got a lot of work to do to get back to square one dude. I just hope it turns out you're a freshman and your program will actually make you into a real computer scientist, instead of some clueless "Designer" who is beyond useless.
You need to get it thru your thick head that "Programmer" is not a subset of "Computer scientist" (which by the way is an awefuly poofter label.
Its the other way around.
A programmer knows the application and techniques for softwware development. A programmer also knows the theory behind computers-- the science of computers.
A computer scientist only knows the theory and not the applciation and is therefore completely useless to everyone.
You were in the business of making people who had no practical skills?
That's just silly. There is no difference between Computer Programming and Computer Science because Computer Programming includes all the Computer Science in Computer Science plus, it sounds like, even more.
Its this stupid anti-productive anti-capitalists "We're going to learn only USELESS things!" attitude that I see coming from you guys. Just foolish.
If you leave the computer behind and do all your work on paper, you are not doing computer science, you are doing mental masturbation.
You know, I never thought that computer science programs would go the way of philosophy and psychology-- and become theory based, unconnected with reality, pseudo-science programs.
What's next, computer poetry as a major?
No wonder you guys are turning people out who can't program, can't think and don't have much of the theory-- you've rejected the science in computer science.
Hell, you've rejected the computers!
If you're doing your work on paper, you're not a computer scientist-- you're a luddite.
You guys are just wout of touch. I cannot talk for Cornell, but I know people who go to MIT.
You start programming your first year at MIT even if you AREN'T a CS major.
Your'e right that they have a real CS program-- its a true CS program because they teach you everything, hardware, software, electronics, theory and you do a LOT of programming.
IF you have done little actual programming when you got out of college, you know nothing about computer science.
I know it probably sounds ideal to you guys to just sit and think about theory, but it doesn't serve you well. Unless you're build computer architectures or electrical engineering-- in which case you still need more software development experience than you seem to want.
Software engineering IS the core of computer science. Unless you're building hardware, you're building software. There are no other computer related disciplines.
Coding IS what its all about. Unless you want to graduate and be able to annoy people at cocktail parties but be completely unable to keep up with your peers at a job.
Straight out of college someone SHOULD be able to walk right into a developer job.
Why do you want them to be even less able to?
I cannot fathom why you would prefer theory over practice. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Great CS programs give you a lot of practice and enough theory.
IF you want to get rid of the practice, the theory will not stick with you very long..... sounds like a setup for someone to be a manager of programmers-- and possibly the worst manager ever who thinks things should work a certain way because theory tells him, but has no clue about the practice of software development.
High level examples and speudo code and little acutal coding means: Easy easy easy. No thinking, no hard work.
You know what the body builders say-- no pain, no gain. No code, no computer science.
What you're talking about is "Computer Philosophy".
Computer *Science* involves getting your hands dirty.
If you aren't ready to write code, you have no business studying computers (unless you're a hardware guy, in which case you should still write some code, but not that much.)
If you can't write code, you should not get a computer science degree.
The worst thing about college CS Majors these days is they get too much theory that doesn't serve them in the real world-- I'm amazed to hear someone say they shouldn't have to write any code.
IT is not intuitive to right click for the "altertnative" fucntion.
Apple tried 2 and 3 button mice while developing the mac and found that they slowed people down. In the late 80s the topic came up again and I saw independant studies that showed the same thing.
With a one button mouse, you jsut click-- its intuitive.
With 2 or more buttons, you have to think and click.
It slows you down measurably-- eg: doing the same tasks takes longer for the same people.
You just can't handle the fact that Apple made a serious dent in the monopoly of the PC and released a truely innovative product.... and os you will lie and lie and lie.
You said Apple just "packaged an existing product" which is a bald faced lie-- now you're saying that what they shipped in 1984 was exactly the same product Xerox shipped in 1973-- which is an obvious lie.
You don't really think anyone believes that Xerox shipped the Macintosh operating system in 1973, do you?
And the Alto was released iwth the rudiments of a GUI, not a GUI.
Do you even know what a GUI is? A GUI is an overlapping windows system with a desktop metaphor.
Xerox invented the mouse, ethernet, smalltalk, etc. Not the GUI.
It is simply dishonest to claim that a research effort is the same as a final product--- you deny credit to the people who took basic research and made it usable.
LOL-- you call it proprietary hardware but its just as proprietary as the hardware made by XEROX, or Apple--- IBM just lost their suit to protect its proprietary nature.
You history revisionists just are either totally ignorant, or complete liars--- for instance, the GUI did not exist before Apple was founded in 1977.
You think a nice demo done in the 60s-- we've all seen the movie--- is "The GUI"?
That tells me you've never written any software....
I guess the transistor was prior art for the computer... no new innovations had to be made to go from one to the other, eh?
Go try and use an alto sometime. I've actually used one.
I have to say all you teenagers who have never used one who think its the same thing as a macintosh should be ashamed.
But you're not listenting-- you have your politically correct view of History that justifies your irrational hatred of Apple (Which is of course ironic because you hate them for being innovative, while you let Microsoft slide for STEALLING APPLES WORK) at the same time that your profess support for open source and a hatred of intellectual property.
There's a mindfield of inconsistencies there.... one day a rational thought is going to set them all off and you're going to have one hell of a headache.
This forum is pathetic... ntohing but kids too young to know any better insisting their fantasies about actions that happened before they were born are true. (And if you're not a kid-- then you have NO EXCUSE)
The Mac was designed to make workers more efficient, and studies showed, and have shown since then, that the single button mouse lets you get work done faster.
I know you guys will never believe it, but its objective fact.
Oh, and UT2k3 runs great on a mac-- better graphics than I've seen on the PC.
Why is it you guys have to use ignorance (of mice) or lies to bash the mac? Oh, I know-- cause you know that macs are superior.
And you're pissed that you paid more money for less computer?
You know you can run Linux on Mac hardware, don't you?
Lets see, you lie about what I said and then attack me personally for it. Well, that shows your level of integrity.
In order for your position to be consistent, you'd have to say that the Mac and the Alto are the same thing-- a very absurd statement.
Frankly, You don't know history... The Xerox Alto, was first released in 1981. The Mac, in January 1984. EG: About 3 years later. Not Ten. But the trueth is inconveneint to a revisionist like you, eh?
And the Alto didn't even have overlapping windows, or many of the most importnat features of the first GUI-- which shipped on the Mac.
No, you idiot, the reasong XEROX didn't sue is that it never happened.
Apple LICENSED the work that Xerox did. They gave the millions in Apple stock-- which was the biggest IPO ever at the time-- in exchange for work Xerox didn't know what to do with anyway. Xerox thought they were ripping Apple off.
But this fact is conveniently forgotten by you anti-apple bigots.
You're called on it-- LIAR.
(And if you simply didn't know, then you shouldn't have made the accusation in the first place.)
Yes, windows was clearly a rip off of the Macintosh, not IBMs work.
Apple, WHO INVENTED THE GUI, never gets the credit they deserve-- for what tehy added to XEROX'x basic research, nor for what Microsoft stole from them.
Sigh. Why is it on slashdot when you point out an actual technical fact, you get called a troll?
Anyway, the number I cited came from the Staccato communications website's FAQ. They're a member of the MBOA and one of the companies behind UWB.
I grant that comparing a shipping product to a future product is problematic-- but one of the design goals of UWB was to be lower power, and the radio technology is lower power than that used for Bluetooth. DSSS needs more power.
Since when is USB not a standard? Unlike bluetooth, WUSB is based on an existing standard... wheras bluetooth is a new standard that people have to adopt- and that takes engineering effort.
WUSB allows for a PAN-- Have you never heard of USB OTG? Its already part of the standard.
And if you would read the Bluetooth spec you'd see that Bluetooth is just as host-device oriented as USB is, except that the host and devices can switch roles, just like in USB OTG.
In your PAN, there is always a device acting as a host for that PAN.
WUSB because of its technology will accomplish all three of those goals-- unlike Bluetooth because of its technology, which can only ever accomplish one and two. And really isn't accomplishing any of the three right now.
Bluetooth's spec didn't quite work out, unfortunately, and that makes it expensive to integrate.
I do wish people on slashdot would actually understand the technology before they weigh in.... for instance, nobody has commented on the uniqe radio method that WUSB uses, which is UWB. I assume you didn't know about it.
Bluetooth takes about 10mW to transmit. UWB takes 0.2Mw. Bluetooth is about 1Mbps, WUSB is 480Mbps Bluetooth has a complicated radio, UWB is very simple-- this translates to cheapness in boardspace, design cost, etc. Bluettooth is a new protocol, WUSB uses USB-- which makes bluetooth more expensive to implement, wheras if you already have USB drivers, WUSB should be much cheaper both in hardware time and engineering costs.
Choose all three.
And USB has OTG-- On the go-- which makes it peer oriented, and WUSB will implement OTG, so it is like bluetooth in that respect.
Gigabit ethernet does speed up TCPIP connections on your LAN.
Apple users are apparently better informed about technology than you.
SCSI is still shipped in high volume today.
As is postscript.
For every one of those stupid things I can name ten or a hundred failed attempts by microsoft or intel to introduce standards.
EG: by your argument the X86 market is a failure because microbus was not successfu.
Never mine that NuBus was a standard bus used by many besides apple (like SCSI), while the "IDE" and "ISA" busses-- which are really the same signalling thing-- are non-standards, and default standards.
Virtually every major innovation on the PC platform was popularized or invented by Apple:
RISC processing The GUI The freakin; CD-ROM! You have apple to thank for that. USB. FireWire Flat Panel Displays Tower cases! the 3.5 inch floppy drive The Laser Printer The Mouse (and a one button mouse is superior, you idiot) The concept of a Desktop Bus (Which inspired USB) WiFi Zero-configuration networking Movies on computers-- Quicktime predates them all. TCP/IP INTEGRATED INTO THE OS! Long before Windows, and still a supperior implementation. When millions of people were buying "internet in a box" mac users were already dialing up.
One button mice are much faster and more efficient. You get more done.
You are a fucking idiot who knows very little about the history and thinks youre warped sheltered and clueless perceptions are reality. Learn some facts first, dumbass.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, no I think you're the one who can't be bothered to actually do any computer science (eg: work) and just wants to engage in mental masturbation all day.
Yes, there are coders that learn scripting languages and basic programming... but even basic programming requires knowledge of how computers work.
As you point out, programming is essential to your computer science curriculem, so your fantasies about having "Computer science" without programmign are just as absurd to your college as they are to me.
When you find monkeys that can do your programming for you, have fun.
But the fact of the matter is, there is more to software development than just programming, and unfortunately, computer science programs tend to focus too much on theory and not enough on the practice of software development.
By the way, you can't seem to decide if you agree with me or not-- all these "Computer scientists" who say they want to get away from computers and just work with paper are the problem here... yet you acknowledge my point-- a quicksort on paper is beyond meaningless- you'll never notice your errors, and it does nothing.
And pretty useless. I'm glad to see that UCB hasn't regressed.
It would be nice if colleges had team programming and simulted an actual software development project at least once-- and let people experiment with team programming, extreme programming, and then traditional design, develop, test programming....
Even better would be a programming assignment that changed as the students were implementing it!
All that could be done in one class, one semester and help them a lot.
Berkeley is one of the higher rated CS programs in the country, in the top ten if I recall.
And it seems like its not an ivory tower theory only program either... so I don't know what these "I don't want to get my hands dirty with the monkeys" guys are smoking.
Ah, now I understand.
You guys have never actually written a commercial program, have you?
If you think you can sit an design a program and have "monkeys" as you called them-- code it. Then you're deluded.
IF you think this is a superior way to go about it, then you're confused beyond redemption.
Wait til you actually write software for a commercial endeavor, and then lets see what you think about having "monkeys" write your code.
The reason those guys in india are getting so much work is that they are COMPUTER SCIENTISTS . They are PROGRAMMERS. They have Masters degrees just as good as yours and all the theory you could want.
They don't need you to design it for them, they can do that themselves.
In the olden days the lowest level person in the software department was the programming analyist-- all they did was figure out what the customer wanted and communicate that to the programmers-- you know, the ones with the theory and the ability, to write programs.
You want to reduce the output of CS programs to that? To people who can't program, but can merely tell others what to do, and get coffee for them while they are at it?
Get this straight: you CANNOT design software without knowing how to write it. And even in my day CS programs didn't teach you enoug habout how to write it.... now they apparently teach you even less.
Knowing hte language is not enough-- knowing how to work with people and how to design programs that are implemented by groups of people and do so well-- is a whole different skills set, that has nothing to do with CS theory, but that will bite you in the ass and make your products suck really bad if you just sit back and "Design" while letting "monkey's" implement it.
If you are a CS graduate, then you would have been better off getting a job instead--- clearly that college has made you worse, not better.
You have NO CLUE what it takes to make high quality products.
I've spent most of my career in software development, and I know its hard-- even experienced professionals have trouble making high quality products. Some "designer" who wants to sit back and direct people would be quickly ostracised and then ignored by a team of Computer Scientists who knew what they were doing.
And when you called us "Monkeys" you'd be fired.
You got a lot of work to do to get back to square one dude. I just hope it turns out you're a freshman and your program will actually make you into a real computer scientist, instead of some clueless "Designer" who is beyond useless.
You need to get it thru your thick head that "Programmer" is not a subset of "Computer scientist" (which by the way is an awefuly poofter label.
Its the other way around.
A programmer knows the application and techniques for softwware development. A programmer also knows the theory behind computers-- the science of computers.
A computer scientist only knows the theory and not the applciation and is therefore completely useless to everyone.
You were in the business of making people who had no practical skills?
That's just silly. There is no difference between Computer Programming and Computer Science because Computer Programming includes all the Computer Science in Computer Science plus, it sounds like, even more.
Its this stupid anti-productive anti-capitalists "We're going to learn only USELESS things!" attitude that I see coming from you guys. Just foolish.
If you leave the computer behind and do all your work on paper, you are not doing computer science, you are doing mental masturbation.
You know, I never thought that computer science programs would go the way of philosophy and psychology-- and become theory based, unconnected with reality, pseudo-science programs.
What's next, computer poetry as a major?
No wonder you guys are turning people out who can't program, can't think and don't have much of the theory-- you've rejected the science in computer science.
Hell, you've rejected the computers!
If you're doing your work on paper, you're not a computer scientist-- you're a luddite.
You guys are just wout of touch. I cannot talk for Cornell, but I know people who go to MIT.
You start programming your first year at MIT even if you AREN'T a CS major.
Your'e right that they have a real CS program-- its a true CS program because they teach you everything, hardware, software, electronics, theory and you do a LOT of programming.
IF you have done little actual programming when you got out of college, you know nothing about computer science.
I know it probably sounds ideal to you guys to just sit and think about theory, but it doesn't serve you well. Unless you're build computer architectures or electrical engineering-- in which case you still need more software development experience than you seem to want.
Software engineering IS the core of computer science. Unless you're building hardware, you're building software. There are no other computer related disciplines.
Coding IS what its all about. Unless you want to graduate and be able to annoy people at cocktail parties but be completely unable to keep up with your peers at a job.
Straight out of college someone SHOULD be able to walk right into a developer job.
Why do you want them to be even less able to?
I cannot fathom why you would prefer theory over practice. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Great CS programs give you a lot of practice and enough theory.
IF you want to get rid of the practice, the theory will not stick with you very long..... sounds like a setup for someone to be a manager of programmers-- and possibly the worst manager ever who thinks things should work a certain way because theory tells him, but has no clue about the practice of software development.
High level examples and speudo code and little acutal coding means: Easy easy easy. No thinking, no hard work.
You know what the body builders say-- no pain, no gain. No code, no computer science.
Software development is what computer science IS.
WTF?
What you're talking about is "Computer Philosophy".
Computer *Science* involves getting your hands dirty.
If you aren't ready to write code, you have no business studying computers (unless you're a hardware guy, in which case you should still write some code, but not that much.)
If you can't write code, you should not get a computer science degree.
The worst thing about college CS Majors these days is they get too much theory that doesn't serve them in the real world-- I'm amazed to hear someone say they shouldn't have to write any code.
These people just want to stick to their "Apple is evil" matra which is based on the fact that Apple sells software, and selling is evil to them.
a re/alto/ index.html
Here's some pictures of the Alto's "GUI":
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/softw
Notice that there are no windows. They invetned the box for grouping controls, but no windowing system. No desktop metaphore, etc.
Xerox moved things forward with great basic research, but Apple invented the GUI.
IT is not intuitive to right click for the "altertnative" fucntion.
Apple tried 2 and 3 button mice while developing the mac and found that they slowed people down. In the late 80s the topic came up again and I saw independant studies that showed the same thing.
With a one button mouse, you jsut click-- its intuitive.
With 2 or more buttons, you have to think and click.
It slows you down measurably-- eg: doing the same tasks takes longer for the same people.
Except that you are ignorant of the basic timeline, or even of what a GUI is.
Nice combo-namedrop/kissass, though.
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox- alto/
You fucking lying idiot.
This 1973 Alto did not have a GUI.
You just can't handle the fact that Apple made a serious dent in the monopoly of the PC and released a truely innovative product.... and os you will lie and lie and lie.
You said Apple just "packaged an existing product" which is a bald faced lie-- now you're saying that what they shipped in 1984 was exactly the same product Xerox shipped in 1973-- which is an obvious lie.
You don't really think anyone believes that Xerox shipped the Macintosh operating system in 1973, do you?
You're just making a fool of yourself.
Except that Apple paid Xerox for a license, and Microsoft just stole it.
Neither of these is "Borrowing".
Furthermore, Apple advanced the state of the art a great deal.
You guys really are bound and determined to ignore the work that Apple did when they INVENTED the windowing GUI.
The Alto was released in 1981, not 1972.
And the Alto was released iwth the rudiments of a GUI, not a GUI.
Do you even know what a GUI is? A GUI is an overlapping windows system with a desktop metaphor.
Xerox invented the mouse, ethernet, smalltalk, etc. Not the GUI.
It is simply dishonest to claim that a research effort is the same as a final product--- you deny credit to the people who took basic research and made it usable.
LOL-- you call it proprietary hardware but its just as proprietary as the hardware made by XEROX, or Apple--- IBM just lost their suit to protect its proprietary nature.
You history revisionists just are either totally ignorant, or complete liars--- for instance, the GUI did not exist before Apple was founded in 1977.
You think a nice demo done in the 60s-- we've all seen the movie--- is "The GUI"?
That tells me you've never written any software....
I guess the transistor was prior art for the computer... no new innovations had to be made to go from one to the other, eh?
Go try and use an alto sometime. I've actually used one.
I have to say all you teenagers who have never used one who think its the same thing as a macintosh should be ashamed.
But you're not listenting-- you have your politically correct view of History that justifies your irrational hatred of Apple (Which is of course ironic because you hate them for being innovative, while you let Microsoft slide for STEALLING APPLES WORK) at the same time that your profess support for open source and a hatred of intellectual property.
There's a mindfield of inconsistencies there.... one day a rational thought is going to set them all off and you're going to have one hell of a headache.
This forum is pathetic... ntohing but kids too young to know any better insisting their fantasies about actions that happened before they were born are true. (And if you're not a kid-- then you have NO EXCUSE)
A Single button mouse is more efficient.
The Mac was designed to make workers more efficient, and studies showed, and have shown since then, that the single button mouse lets you get work done faster.
I know you guys will never believe it, but its objective fact.
Oh, and UT2k3 runs great on a mac-- better graphics than I've seen on the PC.
Why is it you guys have to use ignorance (of mice) or lies to bash the mac? Oh, I know-- cause you know that macs are superior.
And you're pissed that you paid more money for less computer?
You know you can run Linux on Mac hardware, don't you?
Lets see, you lie about what I said and then attack me personally for it. Well, that shows your level of integrity.
In order for your position to be consistent, you'd have to say that the Mac and the Alto are the same thing-- a very absurd statement.
Frankly, You don't know history... The Xerox Alto, was first released in 1981. The Mac, in January 1984. EG: About 3 years later. Not Ten. But the trueth is inconveneint to a revisionist like you, eh?
And the Alto didn't even have overlapping windows, or many of the most importnat features of the first GUI-- which shipped on the Mac.
No, you idiot, the reasong XEROX didn't sue is that it never happened.
Apple LICENSED the work that Xerox did. They gave the millions in Apple stock-- which was the biggest IPO ever at the time-- in exchange for work Xerox didn't know what to do with anyway. Xerox thought they were ripping Apple off.
But this fact is conveniently forgotten by you anti-apple bigots.
You're called on it-- LIAR.
(And if you simply didn't know, then you shouldn't have made the accusation in the first place.)
Yes, windows was clearly a rip off of the Macintosh, not IBMs work.
Apple, WHO INVENTED THE GUI, never gets the credit they deserve-- for what tehy added to XEROX'x basic research, nor for what Microsoft stole from them.
Yes because you're an ignorant slashdot poster just waiting to get a jibe in to apple.
In otherwords you're a troll, and so you're modded "Score:5 Insightful".
Jesus. They really should start requiring a computer history education before allowing people to post.
To call Apple's work "Mass marketing of an exsiting product" is to show profound ignorance.
THIS is exactly why slashdot comments are worthless.... and nobody who is proficient in their craft bothers to post here anymore.
Sigh. Why is it on slashdot when you point out an actual technical fact, you get called a troll?
Anyway, the number I cited came from the Staccato communications website's FAQ. They're a member of the MBOA and one of the companies behind UWB.
I grant that comparing a shipping product to a future product is problematic-- but one of the design goals of UWB was to be lower power, and the radio technology is lower power than that used for Bluetooth. DSSS needs more power.
Its amazing that even when pressed you can't even come up with anything.
And I love the "I've never seen one so it doesn't exist" logic.
I'm continually amazed that people as brain dead as you exist in the world....
Since when is USB not a standard? Unlike bluetooth, WUSB is based on an existing standard... wheras bluetooth is a new standard that people have to adopt- and that takes engineering effort.
WUSB allows for a PAN-- Have you never heard of USB OTG? Its already part of the standard.
And if you would read the Bluetooth spec you'd see that Bluetooth is just as host-device oriented as USB is, except that the host and devices can switch roles, just like in USB OTG.
In your PAN, there is always a device acting as a host for that PAN.
Read the spec.
Wireless USB is lower powerr than bluetooth.
Bluetooth is targetting 1mW, whereas wireless USB will draw 0.2mW.
I don't know why the guy in question said 100mW, maybe because in the early days the chips will be less integrated...
but from a physics viewpoint UWB is a much lowerr power draw than DSSS that bluetooth uses.
WUSB will be more apporpriate for low power devices than Bluetooth is.
Bluetooth is neither cheap nor fast.
WUSB because of its technology will accomplish all three of those goals-- unlike Bluetooth because of its technology, which can only ever accomplish one and two. And really isn't accomplishing any of the three right now.
Bluetooth's spec didn't quite work out, unfortunately, and that makes it expensive to integrate.
I do wish people on slashdot would actually understand the technology before they weigh in.... for instance, nobody has commented on the uniqe radio method that WUSB uses, which is UWB. I assume you didn't know about it.
Bluetooth takes about 10mW to transmit. UWB takes 0.2Mw.
Bluetooth is about 1Mbps, WUSB is 480Mbps
Bluetooth has a complicated radio, UWB is very simple-- this translates to cheapness in boardspace, design cost, etc.
Bluettooth is a new protocol, WUSB uses USB-- which makes bluetooth more expensive to implement, wheras if you already have USB drivers, WUSB should be much cheaper both in hardware time and engineering costs.
Choose all three.
And USB has OTG-- On the go-- which makes it peer oriented, and WUSB will implement OTG, so it is like bluetooth in that respect.
You're a fucking idiot.
Appletalk ships in every Linux distro.
Gigabit ethernet does speed up TCPIP connections on your LAN.
Apple users are apparently better informed about technology than you.
SCSI is still shipped in high volume today.
As is postscript.
For every one of those stupid things I can name ten or a hundred failed attempts by microsoft or intel to introduce standards.
EG: by your argument the X86 market is a failure because microbus was not successfu.
Never mine that NuBus was a standard bus used by many besides apple (like SCSI), while the "IDE" and "ISA" busses-- which are really the same signalling thing-- are non-standards, and default standards.
Virtually every major innovation on the PC platform was popularized or invented by Apple:
RISC processing
The GUI
The freakin; CD-ROM! You have apple to thank for that.
USB.
FireWire
Flat Panel Displays
Tower cases!
the 3.5 inch floppy drive
The Laser Printer
The Mouse (and a one button mouse is superior, you idiot)
The concept of a Desktop Bus (Which inspired USB)
WiFi
Zero-configuration networking
Movies on computers-- Quicktime predates them all.
TCP/IP INTEGRATED INTO THE OS! Long before Windows, and still a supperior implementation.
When millions of people were buying "internet in a box" mac users were already dialing up.
One button mice are much faster and more efficient. You get more done.
You are a fucking idiot who knows very little about the history and thinks youre warped sheltered and clueless perceptions are reality. Learn some facts first, dumbass.