From the article:
``It's like a kid growing into an adult and getting their first job,'' said Giga Information Group analyst Rob Enderle. ''The Pocket PC upgrade is targeted at a professional, maybe someone who's going to use this instead of a laptop.''
and
The changes in Pocket PC 2002 include a new version of Windows Media Player, which allows handheld users to listen to music and watch video clips
Music, ok perhaps...(though seems like a rio might work better), but video? This does not seem like an appropriate form factor for watching much video. Replacing a laptop 12-15" screen with a pocketPC and media player doesn't really seem viable.
Plus, at ~$600 this still doesn't seem to be aimed at the Palm demographic.
Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
Your inability to spell indicates a sub-par education, so I'm afraid I have very little faith in your ability to discern a 'responsible' tax cut from an 'irresponsible tax cut'. What any of this has to do with the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing is beyond me at present.
1. Spelling !=education, != intelligence. Attacking the poster's spelling instead of the poster's idea, however....
2. Given the state of the budget and the likely need to dip into the lockbox'ed social security, the responsibility of such a tax cut is most certainly up for debate.
Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains (Alaska, Kyoto).
Kyoto - a failed piece of hippy junk propaganda.
Alaska - will be just fine, thankyou.
Kyoto - treaty the majority of the industrialized world views as necessary and somewhat forward thinking.
Alaska - and if by fine you mean national refuge lands raped for oil company profits, then sure it'll be fine.
Doing his best to restart the good 'ol cold war (ABM treaty breaking, trying to isolate China).
ABM treaty - I assume you're referring to missile defense. Russia's Buran shuttle project was first initiated (from plans stolen from the US) years back to support their own missile defense system. What China is doing in this regard, no one can know as they are IMPOSSIBLE to monitor. We, in contrast, live in a glass house. So long as anyone has an interest in missile defense, we MUST have an interest in it. Coming in second just won't cut it, I'm afraid. Look at how China's gov't treats their own people before you shed any tears for them.
Yup - missile defense, which requires breaking the ABM treaty. China is not impossible to monitor, hard to predict accurately perhaps. That does not mean isolationist attitudes are either required or appropriate.
And to try and be slightly on topic: This move by the Bush administration (for which Bush is responsible, even if not involved in the final decision) should come as no surprise to anyone even slightly familiar with his policies. That the lawsuit is even being continued at all is likely only due to the fact that Microsoft was already found guilty, and dropping a case under those circumstances would be PR murder.
I want them to include as much as possible so I don't have to go out and spend additional money.
I do not feel cheated by MS, why do you insist on claiming that it hurts me?
I claim that by abusing monopoly power and forcing out of business competitors in program area X, Microsoft brings about a situation when you have only one realistic option in area X. Without competition, there is no reason to continue to improve (or innovate), and there is no incentive not to price gouge. I claim both of these outcomes are hurtful.
Comparing OS that lets people run thousands of professional software application with half-finished OS which at most can offer bunch of perpetual-beta apps with no support is NOT fair.
I assume you are referring to Win in the former part of your statement, and Linux in the latter; however I would suggest the reverse would work as well. Claiming Win is more mature the Linux is a very slippery argument that i doubt we will resolve here. [Though i will mention my linux box has been up 110 days now while my win box makes it a few days if im lucky.] In terms of quality of apps for each, I think you will find a full range of solid, useful, professional to pre-nearly-almost-alpha on both platforms. As for support, again the range is nearly endless on both. I respect your preference for win, but I think you arguments for knocking linux are at a minimum misguided.
I mean, Windows XP is nice. It has more bundled software and features then you can shake a stick at.
Um, exactly the problem...[abuse of monopoly position]
Price is affordable,
Obviously affordable is a relative term...let's compare with linux
for the upgrade 100-200.00 seems like alot, but your getting legal mp3 encoding software, legal cd recording software,
1.Ogg Vorbis/Lame 2.Xcdroast/cdrecord (and out of curiosity, which is *illegal* cd-recording software?)
an os upgrade, compatibility with prior software and a fairly common platform that you can go to any store and buy software and hardware for.
Let's see, os upgrade...um, got that, fairly common platform...got that. I can one up you on the software as very little needs to be bought. Hardware support, pretty darn good as well.
I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Well, then by all means do so. Personally, I'm happy and eager to spend hours getting stuff, setting it up and not only gaining a useful bunch of software but also a great deal of personal edification as well. And I don't even have to pay for it.
So now people will sue microsoft because it/they still include apps within the os.
Yup, abuse of monopoly power is still an illegal act. Applying such force to eliminate competition is (and should be) a bad thing.
Nobody sues IBM for OS/2 that was bundled with a browser (warp 3 & 4), Nobody sued Sun for including the ancient java browser and prefering that you use there browser.
No monopoly.
Windows is microsoft's product afterall. They can decide what and how they want to to work and do. Just like you can decide what and how you want to use it!
No, no they can't. There are still laws governing business practices (not that you'd know it from the state of things).
Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Which, while probably effective, is not the only means of dictating choice.
Personally XP will be my desktop and laptop OS, linux will be my Server/web/email os and linux will also be a developer os (since i can code for my dreamcast and other devices fairly easily).
Good for you. It is fortunate that you have the ability to make such choices. That is what anti-monopoly laws are intended to preserve.
Oops, I was assuming the my.mp3.com service is what is at issue here. If not, the generally available mp3s from the main site are just that, generally available napster or not.
That created a vast bootleg library, from which MP3.com subscribers could download songs. Once on the user's computer hard drive, a single song could be copied and passed around infinitely in the music underground.
Um, as I recall mp3.com did *not* let you directly download songs, only let you listen to streamed versions of them. While you can just have winamp write out the stream to a file, there is still a significant difference being overlooked here.
Any non-authorized streaming is then liable (or perhaps the winamp mp3writer function). Seems to me this argument could as easily be applied to all the webcasting stations anywhere.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in that mp3.com streams != napsterfodder.
I appreciate your comments, though I still think calling this research nanotech is somewhat misleading. Especially considering the type of comments in this thread, nano-tech tends to elicit an image of miniture robots or at least machines (gears, levers, etc etc) rather than a peptide chain (what this really is).
Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules, making it possible to build machines using molecular building blocks or create materials and structures from the bottom up, designing properties by controlling structure.
As for self-assembly, though these things certainly do, so to do umpteen million proteins, nucleic acids, etc. I wonder if the unspoken differentiation is just the use of solely organic stuff for molecular biology and not in nanotechnology? Anyway...my point is to call this nanotech means you must call a large portion of moly bio the same.
What I find disturbing, is how the selection process works. Just dump a bunch of these things in the soup and see what they kill.
Welcome to drug discovery 101. This is a very normal way of finding useful properties and improving those properties. Selection methods like that are an integral part of any drug's path to production.
From dictionary.com:
nanotechnology (nn-tk-nl-j) n.
The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules
Labelling this as nanotechnology seems a bit inaccurate to say the least. This is really *very cool* molecular biology, but unless being nano and in a technical field = nanotechnology, this isn't it.
As a side note, I work at Scripps (across the hall from Ghadiri actually) and can tell you the amount of money received from the Gates Foundation is barely even pocket change.
While I don't claim all consumers to be equally picky about what goes into their ear, the article makes out the consumer to be a mindless minion who is directly controlled by the record labels and their advertising. Sorry. Interesting math game, but I just don't see that as true.
Here is another example of the power of aggregate effects. Small actions taken on a large scale produce large effects. The correlation between publicity of an album and sales are stronger than you might think, just like the correlation between raising taxes even a small amount on cigarettes or alcohol.
Say we raise the excise tax on beer 5 cents on the dollar....what effect will that have on drinking rates, drinking related crime, etc? One common line of thinking is "that won't do jack, another 10 cents isnt going to prevent me from buying a beer, might piss me off, but thats about it." Yet if you actually look at studies, there are few more effective ways to lower drinking rates & related crimes than such relatively small increases. Same thing here. Over a large scale, money spent in promotion can very well predict relative success (of music, TV, movies, legislation, etc etc).
Actually, Ebola isn't that infective if common preventative measures are taken. How do you think the health workers who finally make it to infected areas survive and eliminate the outbreak? The problem is simply that the areas Ebola exists in are the same ones lacking in appropriate medical experience and understanding or ability. Check what the CDC has to say about it.
Once again, this is one of those science fiction articles based on someone with a minimum of knowledge in the field and a vivid imagination. Pipe dream doesn't even begin to describe what is proposed in the article. Having a genome != knowing biological effects, relevance or disruptability. If DNA codons are the letters of life, the genome is simply a list of all the words used. Because I have a copy of webster's on my desk does not mean I have a copy of every book published. Ugh.
People do become immune to flu; it didn't help Sure it did. The epidemic ended and we are still here.
Genetics are at least as complicated as the brain and we have essentially no experience with them. That approximation may offend some scientists in the field, and I don't mean for that, but look at were we are. What are there, a couple tests for genetic diseases, a kind of corn that keeps leaking into the mainstream supply and an identity test that couldn't convict OJ?
Being one of the scientists in the field, I have to both agree & disagree with that. While the assertation that we have essentially no experience with genetics is way off the mark (as is the minimalistic list of uses), the sentiment that our level of understanding is miniscule is right on. Genetics as a discipline is one of the elder biological sciences (remember that wacky monk, mendel?), yet even still we are adsurbly far from having the O'Reilly guide to gene manipulation.
Ya know, one of my big beefs with coverage and speculation about molecular biology/genetics/genomics/proteomics etc etc. is the absolute ignorance of how little we actually know and can do (relative to what is suggested or claimed). We can coax bacteria, yeast & higher organism cell lines to make some small selection of proteins often poorly or incorrectly. We have a complete sequence of the genomes for numerous species, yet the actual interesting side of it (how those genes are regulated, how those genes produce numerous forms of proteins (splicing is very poorly understood), how the proteins interact with each other, and perhaps the most complex problem yet to be asked, how to determine how a protein folds given just its sequence.) is still basically a black box.
Within those 10 years, the genomes of many organisms will be sequenced, providing a parts list for the proteins forming the structural and control elements in those organisms. Biologists, engineers, and physicists are already collaborating on models that will help us understand how those parts work and fit together.
We've got a number of genomes already. Our parts list is equivalent to a spool of wire, a hunk of coal, and a pair of pliers with the task being to build an Athlon. *sigh*
This is not to say we haven't come far, nor to suggest we aren't moving at an ever increasing speed...it's just that we need to keep perspective and realize that so many speculative headlines, especially in this field, are more suited of the weekly world news than any mainstream media.
1. Since when did protons become electron carriers? I never got that memo. Both are charged particles that can transfer charge (like any other ion you wanna pick), but i'm pretty sure you don't see an electron hoping on the back of a proton for a ride.
2. where on earth did photons come into this discussion? We're talking about protons...
It looks like this is just a redox reaction like what goes on in your generic battery, fuel cell, and basic chem lab. I'm guessing the rub is just that you are using organic polymers (C,N,O,H) rather than nastier elements. (in fact, the two polymer derivitives they mention are just N containing aromatic molecules)
-Ted
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
``It's like a kid growing into an adult and getting their first job,'' said Giga Information Group analyst Rob Enderle. ''The Pocket PC upgrade is targeted at a professional, maybe someone who's going to use this instead of a laptop.''
and
The changes in Pocket PC 2002 include a new version of Windows Media Player, which allows handheld users to listen to music and watch video clips
Music, ok perhaps...(though seems like a rio might work better), but video? This does not seem like an appropriate form factor for watching much video. Replacing a laptop 12-15" screen with a pocketPC and media player doesn't really seem viable.
Plus, at ~$600 this still doesn't seem to be aimed at the Palm demographic.
-Ted
allowing religion to limit science
Huh?
His stem cell decision.
Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
Your inability to spell indicates a sub-par education, so I'm afraid I have very little faith in your ability to discern a 'responsible' tax cut from an 'irresponsible tax cut'. What any of this has to do with the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing is beyond me at present.
1. Spelling !=education, != intelligence. Attacking the poster's spelling instead of the poster's idea, however....
2. Given the state of the budget and the likely need to dip into the lockbox'ed social security, the responsibility of such a tax cut is most certainly up for debate.
Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains (Alaska, Kyoto).
Kyoto - a failed piece of hippy junk propaganda.
Alaska - will be just fine, thankyou.
Kyoto - treaty the majority of the industrialized world views as necessary and somewhat forward thinking.
Alaska - and if by fine you mean national refuge lands raped for oil company profits, then sure it'll be fine.
Doing his best to restart the good 'ol cold war (ABM treaty breaking, trying to isolate China).
ABM treaty - I assume you're referring to missile defense. Russia's Buran shuttle project was first initiated (from plans stolen from the US) years back to support their own missile defense system. What China is doing in this regard, no one can know as they are IMPOSSIBLE to monitor. We, in contrast, live in a glass house. So long as anyone has an interest in missile defense, we MUST have an interest in it. Coming in second just won't cut it, I'm afraid. Look at how China's gov't treats their own people before you shed any tears for them.
Yup - missile defense, which requires breaking the ABM treaty. China is not impossible to monitor, hard to predict accurately perhaps. That does not mean isolationist attitudes are either required or appropriate.
And to try and be slightly on topic: This move by the Bush administration (for which Bush is responsible, even if not involved in the final decision) should come as no surprise to anyone even slightly familiar with his policies. That the lawsuit is even being continued at all is likely only due to the fact that Microsoft was already found guilty, and dropping a case under those circumstances would be PR murder.
-Ted
I do not feel cheated by MS, why do you insist on claiming that it hurts me?
I claim that by abusing monopoly power and forcing out of business competitors in program area X, Microsoft brings about a situation when you have only one realistic option in area X. Without competition, there is no reason to continue to improve (or innovate), and there is no incentive not to price gouge. I claim both of these outcomes are hurtful.
Comparing OS that lets people run thousands of professional software application with half-finished OS which at most can offer bunch of perpetual-beta apps with no support is NOT fair.
I assume you are referring to Win in the former part of your statement, and Linux in the latter; however I would suggest the reverse would work as well. Claiming Win is more mature the Linux is a very slippery argument that i doubt we will resolve here. [Though i will mention my linux box has been up 110 days now while my win box makes it a few days if im lucky.] In terms of quality of apps for each, I think you will find a full range of solid, useful, professional to pre-nearly-almost-alpha on both platforms. As for support, again the range is nearly endless on both. I respect your preference for win, but I think you arguments for knocking linux are at a minimum misguided.
-Ted
I mean, Windows XP is nice. It has more bundled software and features then you can shake a stick at.
Um, exactly the problem...[abuse of monopoly position]
Price is affordable,
Obviously affordable is a relative term...let's compare with linux
for the upgrade 100-200.00 seems like alot, but your getting legal mp3 encoding software, legal cd recording software,
1.Ogg Vorbis/Lame 2.Xcdroast/cdrecord (and out of curiosity, which is *illegal* cd-recording software?)
an os upgrade, compatibility with prior software and a fairly common platform that you can go to any store and buy software and hardware for.
Let's see, os upgrade...um, got that, fairly common platform...got that. I can one up you on the software as very little needs to be bought. Hardware support, pretty darn good as well.
I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Well, then by all means do so. Personally, I'm happy and eager to spend hours getting stuff, setting it up and not only gaining a useful bunch of software but also a great deal of personal edification as well. And I don't even have to pay for it.
So now people will sue microsoft because it/they still include apps within the os.
Yup, abuse of monopoly power is still an illegal act. Applying such force to eliminate competition is (and should be) a bad thing.
Nobody sues IBM for OS/2 that was bundled with a browser (warp 3 & 4), Nobody sued Sun for including the ancient java browser and prefering that you use there browser.
No monopoly.
Windows is microsoft's product afterall. They can decide what and how they want to to work and do. Just like you can decide what and how you want to use it!
No, no they can't. There are still laws governing business practices (not that you'd know it from the state of things).
Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Which, while probably effective, is not the only means of dictating choice.
Personally XP will be my desktop and laptop OS, linux will be my Server/web/email os and linux will also be a developer os (since i can code for my dreamcast and other devices fairly easily).
Good for you. It is fortunate that you have the ability to make such choices. That is what anti-monopoly laws are intended to preserve.
-Ted
Oops, I was assuming the my.mp3.com service is what is at issue here. If not, the generally available mp3s from the main site are just that, generally available napster or not.
-Ted
Um, as I recall mp3.com did *not* let you directly download songs, only let you listen to streamed versions of them. While you can just have winamp write out the stream to a file, there is still a significant difference being overlooked here.
Any non-authorized streaming is then liable (or perhaps the winamp mp3writer function). Seems to me this argument could as easily be applied to all the webcasting stations anywhere.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in that mp3.com streams != napsterfodder.
Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules, making it possible to build machines using molecular building blocks or create materials and structures from the bottom up, designing properties by controlling structure.
As for self-assembly, though these things certainly do, so to do umpteen million proteins, nucleic acids, etc. I wonder if the unspoken differentiation is just the use of solely organic stuff for molecular biology and not in nanotechnology? Anyway...my point is to call this nanotech means you must call a large portion of moly bio the same.
-Ted
Welcome to drug discovery 101. This is a very normal way of finding useful properties and improving those properties. Selection methods like that are an integral part of any drug's path to production.
-Ted
From dictionary.com: nanotechnology (nn-tk-nl-j) n.
The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules
Labelling this as nanotechnology seems a bit inaccurate to say the least. This is really *very cool* molecular biology, but unless being nano and in a technical field = nanotechnology, this isn't it.
As a side note, I work at Scripps (across the hall from Ghadiri actually) and can tell you the amount of money received from the Gates Foundation is barely even pocket change.
-Ted
Actually i think the three bodies problem is how to convince ones girlfriend to include the third body in that mutual gravitational field
-Ted
Here is another example of the power of aggregate effects. Small actions taken on a large scale produce large effects. The correlation between publicity of an album and sales are stronger than you might think, just like the correlation between raising taxes even a small amount on cigarettes or alcohol.
Say we raise the excise tax on beer 5 cents on the dollar....what effect will that have on drinking rates, drinking related crime, etc? One common line of thinking is "that won't do jack, another 10 cents isnt going to prevent me from buying a beer, might piss me off, but thats about it." Yet if you actually look at studies, there are few more effective ways to lower drinking rates & related crimes than such relatively small increases. Same thing here. Over a large scale, money spent in promotion can very well predict relative success (of music, TV, movies, legislation, etc etc).
-Ted
Actually, Ebola isn't that infective if common preventative measures are taken. How do you think the health workers who finally make it to infected areas survive and eliminate the outbreak? The problem is simply that the areas Ebola exists in are the same ones lacking in appropriate medical experience and understanding or ability. Check what the CDC has to say about it.
Once again, this is one of those science fiction articles based on someone with a minimum of knowledge in the field and a vivid imagination. Pipe dream doesn't even begin to describe what is proposed in the article. Having a genome != knowing biological effects, relevance or disruptability. If DNA codons are the letters of life, the genome is simply a list of all the words used. Because I have a copy of webster's on my desk does not mean I have a copy of every book published. Ugh.
People do become immune to flu; it didn't help
Sure it did. The epidemic ended and we are still here.
-Ted
Genetics are at least as complicated as the brain and we have essentially no experience with them. That approximation may offend some scientists in the field, and I don't mean for that, but look at were we are. What are there, a couple tests for genetic diseases, a kind of corn that keeps leaking into the mainstream supply and an identity test that couldn't convict OJ?
Being one of the scientists in the field, I have to both agree & disagree with that. While the assertation that we have essentially no experience with genetics is way off the mark (as is the minimalistic list of uses), the sentiment that our level of understanding is miniscule is right on. Genetics as a discipline is one of the elder biological sciences (remember that wacky monk, mendel?), yet even still we are adsurbly far from having the O'Reilly guide to gene manipulation.
Ya know, one of my big beefs with coverage and speculation about molecular biology/genetics/genomics/proteomics etc etc. is the absolute ignorance of how little we actually know and can do (relative to what is suggested or claimed). We can coax bacteria, yeast & higher organism cell lines to make some small selection of proteins often poorly or incorrectly. We have a complete sequence of the genomes for numerous species, yet the actual interesting side of it (how those genes are regulated, how those genes produce numerous forms of proteins (splicing is very poorly understood), how the proteins interact with each other, and perhaps the most complex problem yet to be asked, how to determine how a protein folds given just its sequence.) is still basically a black box.
Within those 10 years, the genomes of many organisms will be sequenced, providing a parts list for the proteins forming the structural and control elements in those organisms. Biologists, engineers, and physicists are already collaborating on models that will help us understand how those parts work and fit together.
We've got a number of genomes already. Our parts list is equivalent to a spool of wire, a hunk of coal, and a pair of pliers with the task being to build an Athlon. *sigh*
This is not to say we haven't come far, nor to suggest we aren't moving at an ever increasing speed...it's just that we need to keep perspective and realize that so many speculative headlines, especially in this field, are more suited of the weekly world news than any mainstream media.
-Ted
1. Since when did protons become electron carriers? I never got that memo. Both are charged particles that can transfer charge (like any other ion you wanna pick), but i'm pretty sure you don't see an electron hoping on the back of a proton for a ride.
2. where on earth did photons come into this discussion? We're talking about protons...
It looks like this is just a redox reaction like what goes on in your generic battery, fuel cell, and basic chem lab. I'm guessing the rub is just that you are using organic polymers (C,N,O,H) rather than nastier elements. (in fact, the two polymer derivitives they mention are just N containing aromatic molecules)
-Ted