Just amused. Yes, the internet is 'new and fresh' technology, but there's nothing saying that it's a new and different world.
If it truly were a new and different world, most people would not be able to function in it, and until they can create new constructs to suit the new technology, they have to rely on baggage brought from the old world...
You're right, most people do prefer security to possibility, freedom, and excitement ^^
I did make as a parting comment the fact that someone not so scrupulous, who had access to this data, becomes the most feared and dangerous person around.
Not a foolproof one, by any means, but an answer none-the-less
There's the concept of the slippery slope. One step down justifies the second step; using something akin to induction, the Nth step justifies the N+1 step, etc.
So we violate a *little* bit of privacy to protect children. Then we violate a little bit more, to stop criminals. Well, why not a little bit more to stop hate-groups? Then a little bit more to stop the insane. Then a little bit more to stop the disgruntled office worker with a gun. Then a little bit more for the kid who always gets beat up after school, and trying to find a gun. And a little bit more for the guy trying to find some booze and drugs for his party...
To address your statement, privacy is worth more than very many things. There will always be situations in which privacy is discarded (police search and seizure, warrant to enter, wiretap, etc), but on general grounds, any rights we have, once we give up, cannot generally be taken back without a fight.
The argument against RIP is essentially that of innate rights and protections. In the US, at least, any right not enumerated by the Constitution or Bill of Rights is automatically granted to the people, or something like that. In otherwords, a right need not be explicit for it to be afforded protection and observance.
I mean, the police services and such, in our best interest, want to protect us. That I can understand. The govt, I'm not so sure I trust, but let's give them some leeway. They can feel free to fund technology to decrypt, decode, decipher, and hack away at the security systems... but to intentionally allow a flaw in the system? Then what's to stop the not so scrupulous peoples from taking advantage of this? What's to stop the criminals?
You can also probably play with diffraction gratings, lenses, mirrors, and other neato optical toys to get the desired effects
You know, this is stupid. Evidently, the lamness filter detects all this neato ascii art, and thinks it shouldn't be posting it... Well, at least I can't preview it, though the messed up non-plaintext version got committed. Maybe I should try again ^^
You can also probably play with diffraction gratings, lenses, mirrors, and other neato optical toys to get the desired effects
You know, this is stupid. Evidently, the lamness filter detects all this neato ascii art, and thinks it shouldn't be posting it... Well, at least I can't preview it, though the messed up non-plaintext version got committed. Maybe I should try again ^^
NASA's budget, IIRC, is pretty small.
<a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-003-HQ.html"> NASA's budget</a>
Something like 14 billion a year. Given that the US GNP is close to hundreds of trillions of dollars...
Regardless of whether I'm correct or you believe me about the money, sedimentation, as a process, does not work with volcanic activity or wind. It's defined by the existence of a liquid and solutes, things dissolved into the liquid.
IE, a sediment. Take sand, mud, clay, etc, in a jar of water, and let the stuff settle down and compact into rock, stone, whatever. This process just isn't defined by wind or volcanic activity, where volcanic activity melts and reforges pre-existing stone, and wind wears down and erodes pre-existing stone.
Nintendo, if they only wanted to make money, would have made Pokemon card games for Dreamcast, with online play, or Pokemon racing games, for the PSX...
Me, I can't fathom their strategy. Well, actually, I can guess.
By releasing a atomic box, the GameCube and the GameBoyA, they can lure and entice developers.
"We have a fixed platform. It'll be easy to develop for, without future driver or incompatibility issues."
"We use PPC and ATI. It's as easy as buying a G4^2 box and our development kit."
Still, they should probably have separate software and hardware divisions, for maximum profitability, with reduced or zero licensing costs for internal development.
That way we can get the games we want on the platforms we want... Nintendo could get more money by selling more games... and then they could compete, platform for platform, technologically, with the increased funds.
Though I guess there is still the fear that releasing games on competing hardware is suicidal...
Why is it ridiculous? These machines are expected to have a lifespan of 5-8 years... In 3 or 4 years, I'd think the average PC would match their performance, and in only 2 years a top of the line PC would theoretically blow them away...
I'd imagine Apple PCs would make excellent development platforms, as well as demonstration and testing machines.
I'd think Connectix would love to write an emulator for Apple machines!
I'd hope that Nintendo would gain and profit from selling ever more games! It just stands to see if those DVD-ish discs Nintendo would use are truly DVD compliant and readable by Apple machines!
Support costs are only marginally useful in the sense that they keep customers in the fold, but are not themselves actual revenue sources(excepting the big support contracts for Big Iron).
If IBM supported Linux at all, on Thinkpads, its probably more because all the techies and support people use Thinkpads with Linux, without any negative bearing on Linux, or on IBM.
For example, if this were profitable, a third party company could exist that solely offered support and service for Linux under IBM Thinkpads. Somehow, I doubt they would find the field any more profitable than IBM does, and thus, no service for Linux.
Open Source is a development and coding philosophy that allows for standing on the shoulders of giants (like Science, technically), but isn't by itself anything profitable.
Just like schematics available for a car vs technical support for a car converted to running methanol or something! I think the analogy holds ^^
If a program team came into a project with the specific goal of satisfying 1 need, instead of 100, or 1 customer (the boss, or his daughter, or someone's niece), then you'd have much higher efficiency.
Then perhaps v2 would to rewrite the program into a framework such that it could be extended with plugins and paired with other similarly written programs.
It's a methodology that might actually work. Design for one person. Test on one person. Target one person. Support one person.
Then, afterwards, rework it so that that one person can still use it perfectly, but that everyone else on the team can still use it. Maybe stage three is to rework it so anyone else can use it, with small, minor enhancements and such, but always back to the basis that the one tester, the one user, the one customer, can still use the product.
Does this sound bad? It sounds reasonable, to me!
As for the Church Turing Thesis; a computer is a computer, but MS Word is a blender. It should not be used for maintaining address books, making flow charts, web site design, or databases. It is a blender.
It could have a plugin for web export. For address book export. For Database export, whatever. But it isn't a computer, or a system. It's just a word processing program!
This soons sooo much like the old CISC vs RISC arguments!
Someone needs to develop and outline a RISC UI environment and tools; Reduced Interface Set Computing, or something.
A set of small, fast, reliable, easy to develop, easy to debug, easy to enhance set of tools. The base for this exists in the GNU toolset... but this has to be applied to a bigger base.
A image processor that handles photos, web-prep, and printing, for the average consumer, without continually adding features or cruft that users don't really use. Leave the hooks for plugins, of course, to enhance and extend it... but leave the core simple, small, and reliable.
Winamp is something very similar for songs and sounds!
Mozilla could stand to be something similar. Is there already too much cruft in it? Mozilla-PARED?
Word processors? VI doesn't cut it, as much as I like it. A Wordpad++ or something like that.
This is a hypothetical, but if I recall correctly, Sega Saturn, N64, PSX, PS2, all use MIPs. Maybe other platforms too... but that boils down to the fact that, combined, there are many more MIPs machines out there than there are x86 machines (at least until recently, when PCs started to drop below 1k)
Then there is the issue that N64 and PS2 both use Rambus; why, oh why, would they be hurting for money? Did they happen to make a really stupid license deal, and not realize just how big Nintendo and Sony are, as regards sales of systems? Or is it, because the devices are sold at a loss, that Rambus can't actually make any money? I would have though Sony or Nintendo would suck up the difference?
I'm also wondering if there can be hybrid PS games? Games that play under PSX, but when popped into the PS2, new, additional features and options become available?
Or, as an alternative, could one use a PSX++ development system? Develop using mostly PSX libraries, and use useful supplementary PS2 technologies as needed?
Using M$ products are not evil; nor are M$ products themselves, or their employees. Rather, it is the M$ intention and means that can be questioned.
The whole issue is that M$ is making you and your peers dependent on the M$ API and toolkit; which means that you just cannot take advantage of the fact that there are, pound for pount, much more *non* M$ devices out there than M$ only. Palm Pilots, for example, and other devices, like cell phones, pagers, watches, cameras, VCRs, TiVos, PS2s, PSXs, Dreamcasts, N64s, GameCubes, GameBoys, Macs, Psions, microwaves, cars, and just about anything else with a couple hundred K of ram and a microprocessor.
Corporate America may use Windows on the desktop, but their little gadgets, tools, toys, and other such amenities aren't M$ geared, and you need to realize that. By being M$ trained, you are almost surely only capable of M$ goals, until you learn/unlearn and deal with other tools and environments.
Did you know just how hot and big Java and Linux is, right now? Well, guess what? M$ discontinued their J++ IDE and support, and have no current Linux plans or support. What are you going to do, then, if all the new hot dot-coms are running and using Linux?
We really don't know what the hold up is; it could be anything, and we have to accept what Sony says at face value, barring some other startling revelation.
As for the RAMBUS, which is my point, that's just a low blow.
I agree that their legal tactics are dispicable, but the technology is real and demonstrated. RAMBUS has certain performance artifacts, as well as price, design, and technical constraints. For low latency, RAMBUS is a bad choice. For high throughput, it's a winner.
Which is why they happen to be in the N64 and PS2; if future developments of DDR and SDRAM change that... well, that's just speculation.
The Saturn had no extant game library to tap into, upon release.
The PS2 can play most of the current PSX game library.
The Saturn had no extant video library to tap into, upon release.
The PS2 can play most DVDs, depending on driver software, region coding, and other hacks.
The Saturn actually had a fairly successful launch, considering their biggest competitor was the NES(see FAQ.)
The PS2's biggest competitor is the PSX, it's direct ancestor.
I suspect, regardless of what else happens, the PS2 won't be a failure. There is this very nice gradual transfer from PSX to PS2 that exists; developers can continue to make and release PS games, to be bought and played by owners of both PS2 and PSX consoles, while releasing and selling 'enhanced' PS2 versions of exact same games(Thereby reusing much of the same art, animation, music, and production costs, while only incurring the, admittedly not inconsequential, development costs of the PS2). There is also the advantage, to Sony, of buyers indulging in DVDs, if only because they just happen to have a DVD player, in their PS2. VCDs never had this kind of option with the Saturn.
Is how many of the buyers are actually getting PS2 units for their kids?
I know *I* would like one; as would every other friend I have, and we certainly don't qualify as kids, in the traditional parents buying Christmas gifts for kids sense, though we would certainly qualify as kids in the still playing video games and reading comic books despite owning a car, having a job, and graduating from college sense.
I can't imagine how many of these consoles would be wasted on 'kids', vs being wasted on 'adults'. Who would get it for the games? Who would get it for the DVD playback? Who would get it for both?
I would imagine that the PS2 would best be targeted towards the working graduated geek who still acts like a kid demographic; we have disposable income, no kids (dinks!), and plenty of recreational habit to feed.
I suspect that the true power of Transmeta is yet to be unleashed!
We've all seen the reviews of the P4's lackluster performance, until apps are recompiled... well, Transmeta CPUs, in theory, doesn't suffer from that problem!
What would be really powerful from Transmeta is a whole line of different CPUs targeting different markets, but able to run, relatively efficiently, an identical codebase! It's just another level of abstraction, one below ASM this time.
Imagine 4 lines of Transmeta CPUs;
a DSP like CPU handles streaming really well, targeting games or entertainment
an ultra low power ultra efficient device for sub-portables and handhelds
A power-hungry long pipeline high Hz CPU targeting the Intel mainstream
A middling class CPU that is more efficient than the Power Hungry beast, but more powerful than the ultra-low power, for mainstream CPU use
Then imagine the code that, compiled once, would run on all 4 classes of machines! Then code could be written and compiled against, say Java to be silly, and then retranslated and recompiled per architecture to best take advantage of each system. The true, real benefit, however, is the time shifting code independence. Something compiled 3 CPU generations ago will be able to run efficiently and effectively on a modern CPU, because of code morphing, where both Intel and Apple has had issues whenever the userbase needed to be moved over from one architecture to another.
What will this do to all the planes flying around the US; the earlybird holiday travelers, as well as the normal Thanksgiving holiday travelers tomorrow...
'When is Quicktime player components going to be open sourced?'
I don't think that's going to happen, any time soon. For those people who want it as a matter of convenience (do everything in Linux!), that's all it is, a convenience.
For those who would need the Quicktime functionality... I guess it's too bad. For each OS their respective strengths, and movie/audio/media happens to be an Apple thing.
For those who would want that codecs for tinkering/development purposes... isn't that what Vorbis is all about?
'When are you going to port Aqua to the Intel world?'
We have, but since we don't make Intel/AMD branded hardware, we won't be selling the software. We would get millions in sales, as a secure, stable, BSD based Intel-platform OS, without any sales of hardware(currently), which means the only revenue model we could pursue would be updates and upgrades to the OS... Therefore shortchanging the R&D and development innovations of a floppy-less iMac, the FireWire enabled devices, the Airport capable systems, the long-battery life portables, the fanless designs, etc.
'How about your PDA plans?'
We are currently researching and developing a PDA strategy.
Now that those questions are out of the way... Hopefully more interesting philosophical/technical/social questions can be asked.
Slashdot Mirror
Just amused. Yes, the internet is 'new and fresh' technology, but there's nothing saying that it's a new and different world.
If it truly were a new and different world, most people would not be able to function in it, and until they can create new constructs to suit the new technology, they have to rely on baggage brought from the old world...
That's just human nature, I think.
Geek dating!
You're right, most people do prefer security to possibility, freedom, and excitement ^^
I did make as a parting comment the fact that someone not so scrupulous, who had access to this data, becomes the most feared and dangerous person around.
Geek dating!
Not a foolproof one, by any means, but an answer none-the-less
There's the concept of the slippery slope. One step down justifies the second step; using something akin to induction, the Nth step justifies the N+1 step, etc.
So we violate a *little* bit of privacy to protect children. Then we violate a little bit more, to stop criminals. Well, why not a little bit more to stop hate-groups? Then a little bit more to stop the insane. Then a little bit more to stop the disgruntled office worker with a gun. Then a little bit more for the kid who always gets beat up after school, and trying to find a gun. And a little bit more for the guy trying to find some booze and drugs for his party...
To address your statement, privacy is worth more than very many things. There will always be situations in which privacy is discarded (police search and seizure, warrant to enter, wiretap, etc), but on general grounds, any rights we have, once we give up, cannot generally be taken back without a fight.
The argument against RIP is essentially that of innate rights and protections. In the US, at least, any right not enumerated by the Constitution or Bill of Rights is automatically granted to the people, or something like that. In otherwords, a right need not be explicit for it to be afforded protection and observance.
I mean, the police services and such, in our best interest, want to protect us. That I can understand. The govt, I'm not so sure I trust, but let's give them some leeway. They can feel free to fund technology to decrypt, decode, decipher, and hack away at the security systems... but to intentionally allow a flaw in the system? Then what's to stop the not so scrupulous peoples from taking advantage of this? What's to stop the criminals?
Geek dating!
There are probably several different mentods to achieve the scanning;
/|\
/|\
GLV Ribbon Rotating Mirror
* -> 0
^
Laser _____________
Display
Laser Rotating GLV Ribbon
---> *
___________
Display
You can also probably play with diffraction gratings, lenses, mirrors, and other neato optical toys to get the desired effects
You know, this is stupid. Evidently, the lamness filter detects all this neato ascii art, and thinks it shouldn't be posting it... Well, at least I can't preview it, though the messed up non-plaintext version got committed. Maybe I should try again ^^
*sigh*
Geek dating!
There are probably several different mentods to achieve the scanning;
/|\
/|\
GLV Ribbon Rotating Mirror
* -> 0
^
Laser _____________
Display
Laser Rotating GLV Ribbon
---> *
___________
Display
You can also probably play with diffraction gratings, lenses, mirrors, and other neato optical toys to get the desired effects
You know, this is stupid. Evidently, the lamness filter detects all this neato ascii art, and thinks it shouldn't be posting it... Well, at least I can't preview it, though the messed up non-plaintext version got committed. Maybe I should try again ^^
*sigh*
Geek dating!
To achieve the scanning; /|\
/|\
GLV Ribbon Rotating Mirror
* -> 0
^
Laser _____________
Display
Laser Rotating GLV Ribbon
---> *
___________
Display
You can also probably play with diffraction gratings, lenses, mirrors, and other neato optical toys to get the desired effects
Geek dating!
NASA's budget, IIRC, is pretty small.L /FS-003-HQ.html"> NASA's budget</a>
<a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTM
Something like 14 billion a year. Given that the US GNP is close to hundreds of trillions of dollars...
Regardless of whether I'm correct or you believe me about the money, sedimentation, as a process, does not work with volcanic activity or wind. It's defined by the existence of a liquid and solutes, things dissolved into the liquid.
IE, a sediment. Take sand, mud, clay, etc, in a jar of water, and let the stuff settle down and compact into rock, stone, whatever. This process just isn't defined by wind or volcanic activity, where volcanic activity melts and reforges pre-existing stone, and wind wears down and erodes pre-existing stone.
Geek dating!
Nintendo, if they only wanted to make money, would have made Pokemon card games for Dreamcast, with online play, or Pokemon racing games, for the PSX...
Me, I can't fathom their strategy. Well, actually, I can guess.
By releasing a atomic box, the GameCube and the GameBoyA, they can lure and entice developers.
"We have a fixed platform. It'll be easy to develop for, without future driver or incompatibility issues."
"We use PPC and ATI. It's as easy as buying a G4^2 box and our development kit."
Still, they should probably have separate software and hardware divisions, for maximum profitability, with reduced or zero licensing costs for internal development.
That way we can get the games we want on the platforms we want... Nintendo could get more money by selling more games... and then they could compete, platform for platform, technologically, with the increased funds.
Though I guess there is still the fear that releasing games on competing hardware is suicidal...
Geek dating!
Itty-bitty living space...
Why is it ridiculous? These machines are expected to have a lifespan of 5-8 years... In 3 or 4 years, I'd think the average PC would match their performance, and in only 2 years a top of the line PC would theoretically blow them away...
This is just 'futureproofing' their products.
Geek dating!
A cross-licensing deal together!
I'd imagine Apple PCs would make excellent development platforms, as well as demonstration and testing machines.
I'd think Connectix would love to write an emulator for Apple machines!
I'd hope that Nintendo would gain and profit from selling ever more games! It just stands to see if those DVD-ish discs Nintendo would use are truly DVD compliant and readable by Apple machines!
Geek dating!
Political or technical issues.
Support costs are only marginally useful in the sense that they keep customers in the fold, but are not themselves actual revenue sources(excepting the big support contracts for Big Iron).
If IBM supported Linux at all, on Thinkpads, its probably more because all the techies and support people use Thinkpads with Linux, without any negative bearing on Linux, or on IBM.
For example, if this were profitable, a third party company could exist that solely offered support and service for Linux under IBM Thinkpads. Somehow, I doubt they would find the field any more profitable than IBM does, and thus, no service for Linux.
Open Source is a development and coding philosophy that allows for standing on the shoulders of giants (like Science, technically), but isn't by itself anything profitable.
Just like schematics available for a car vs technical support for a car converted to running methanol or something! I think the analogy holds ^^
Geek dating!
If a program team came into a project with the specific goal of satisfying 1 need, instead of 100, or 1 customer (the boss, or his daughter, or someone's niece), then you'd have much higher efficiency.
Then perhaps v2 would to rewrite the program into a framework such that it could be extended with plugins and paired with other similarly written programs.
It's a methodology that might actually work. Design for one person. Test on one person. Target one person. Support one person.
Then, afterwards, rework it so that that one person can still use it perfectly, but that everyone else on the team can still use it. Maybe stage three is to rework it so anyone else can use it, with small, minor enhancements and such, but always back to the basis that the one tester, the one user, the one customer, can still use the product.
Does this sound bad? It sounds reasonable, to me!
As for the Church Turing Thesis; a computer is a computer, but MS Word is a blender. It should not be used for maintaining address books, making flow charts, web site design, or databases. It is a blender.
It could have a plugin for web export. For address book export. For Database export, whatever. But it isn't a computer, or a system. It's just a word processing program!
Geek dating!
This soons sooo much like the old CISC vs RISC arguments!
Someone needs to develop and outline a RISC UI environment and tools; Reduced Interface Set Computing, or something.
A set of small, fast, reliable, easy to develop, easy to debug, easy to enhance set of tools. The base for this exists in the GNU toolset... but this has to be applied to a bigger base.
A image processor that handles photos, web-prep, and printing, for the average consumer, without continually adding features or cruft that users don't really use. Leave the hooks for plugins, of course, to enhance and extend it... but leave the core simple, small, and reliable.
Winamp is something very similar for songs and sounds!
Mozilla could stand to be something similar. Is there already too much cruft in it? Mozilla-PARED?
Word processors? VI doesn't cut it, as much as I like it. A Wordpad++ or something like that.
Anyone agree?
Geek dating!
The really neat thing is that you can run Mac OSX, and thus Aqua, on an equivilent PC!
MS had the opportunity and ability to port WinNT to PowerPC and Sparc(they did, a while ago)... but it would be really neat to see the alternative!
On the other hand... imagine running Daisy atop Windows, sitting inside a VMWare instance on Linux on Daisy on an S/390!
Geek dating!
How right you sound!
I'm wondering, then, if these two deals alone made the Rambus fortune?
Geek dating!
http://www.iongames.org/glossary/terms.html
At least this glossary says the Expansion pack has it, and the system itself has 4mb of RDRAM...
http://www.pcquest.com/nov98/speed.asp
This site mentions the usage of RDRAM in a variety of devices, including the N64
Geek dating!
Why the heck is MIPs so popular?
This is a hypothetical, but if I recall correctly, Sega Saturn, N64, PSX, PS2, all use MIPs. Maybe other platforms too... but that boils down to the fact that, combined, there are many more MIPs machines out there than there are x86 machines (at least until recently, when PCs started to drop below 1k)
Then there is the issue that N64 and PS2 both use Rambus; why, oh why, would they be hurting for money? Did they happen to make a really stupid license deal, and not realize just how big Nintendo and Sony are, as regards sales of systems? Or is it, because the devices are sold at a loss, that Rambus can't actually make any money? I would have though Sony or Nintendo would suck up the difference?
I'm also wondering if there can be hybrid PS games? Games that play under PSX, but when popped into the PS2, new, additional features and options become available?
Or, as an alternative, could one use a PSX++ development system? Develop using mostly PSX libraries, and use useful supplementary PS2 technologies as needed?
Geek dating!
I thought the original point/argument was that teaching Visual C++ taught more on APIs than algorithms; IE, APIs at the expense of algorithms...
Geek dating!
Using M$ products are not evil; nor are M$ products themselves, or their employees. Rather, it is the M$ intention and means that can be questioned.
The whole issue is that M$ is making you and your peers dependent on the M$ API and toolkit; which means that you just cannot take advantage of the fact that there are, pound for pount, much more *non* M$ devices out there than M$ only. Palm Pilots, for example, and other devices, like cell phones, pagers, watches, cameras, VCRs, TiVos, PS2s, PSXs, Dreamcasts, N64s, GameCubes, GameBoys, Macs, Psions, microwaves, cars, and just about anything else with a couple hundred K of ram and a microprocessor.
Corporate America may use Windows on the desktop, but their little gadgets, tools, toys, and other such amenities aren't M$ geared, and you need to realize that. By being M$ trained, you are almost surely only capable of M$ goals, until you learn/unlearn and deal with other tools and environments.
Did you know just how hot and big Java and Linux is, right now? Well, guess what? M$ discontinued their J++ IDE and support, and have no current Linux plans or support. What are you going to do, then, if all the new hot dot-coms are running and using Linux?
Geek dating!
We really don't know what the hold up is; it could be anything, and we have to accept what Sony says at face value, barring some other startling revelation.
As for the RAMBUS, which is my point, that's just a low blow.
I agree that their legal tactics are dispicable, but the technology is real and demonstrated. RAMBUS has certain performance artifacts, as well as price, design, and technical constraints. For low latency, RAMBUS is a bad choice. For high throughput, it's a winner.
Which is why they happen to be in the N64 and PS2; if future developments of DDR and SDRAM change that... well, that's just speculation.
Geek dating!
I suspect, regardless of what else happens, the PS2 won't be a failure. There is this very nice gradual transfer from PSX to PS2 that exists; developers can continue to make and release PS games, to be bought and played by owners of both PS2 and PSX consoles, while releasing and selling 'enhanced' PS2 versions of exact same games(Thereby reusing much of the same art, animation, music, and production costs, while only incurring the, admittedly not inconsequential, development costs of the PS2). There is also the advantage, to Sony, of buyers indulging in DVDs, if only because they just happen to have a DVD player, in their PS2. VCDs never had this kind of option with the Saturn.
Geek dating!
Is how many of the buyers are actually getting PS2 units for their kids?
I know *I* would like one; as would every other friend I have, and we certainly don't qualify as kids, in the traditional parents buying Christmas gifts for kids sense, though we would certainly qualify as kids in the still playing video games and reading comic books despite owning a car, having a job, and graduating from college sense.
I can't imagine how many of these consoles would be wasted on 'kids', vs being wasted on 'adults'. Who would get it for the games? Who would get it for the DVD playback? Who would get it for both?
I would imagine that the PS2 would best be targeted towards the working graduated geek who still acts like a kid demographic; we have disposable income, no kids (dinks!), and plenty of recreational habit to feed.
Geek dating!
I suspect that the true power of Transmeta is yet to be unleashed!
We've all seen the reviews of the P4's lackluster performance, until apps are recompiled... well, Transmeta CPUs, in theory, doesn't suffer from that problem!
What would be really powerful from Transmeta is a whole line of different CPUs targeting different markets, but able to run, relatively efficiently, an identical codebase! It's just another level of abstraction, one below ASM this time.
Imagine 4 lines of Transmeta CPUs;
a DSP like CPU handles streaming really well, targeting games or entertainment
an ultra low power ultra efficient device for sub-portables and handhelds
A power-hungry long pipeline high Hz CPU targeting the Intel mainstream
A middling class CPU that is more efficient than the Power Hungry beast, but more powerful than the ultra-low power, for mainstream CPU use
Then imagine the code that, compiled once, would run on all 4 classes of machines! Then code could be written and compiled against, say Java to be silly, and then retranslated and recompiled per architecture to best take advantage of each system. The true, real benefit, however, is the time shifting code independence. Something compiled 3 CPU generations ago will be able to run efficiently and effectively on a modern CPU, because of code morphing, where both Intel and Apple has had issues whenever the userbase needed to be moved over from one architecture to another.
Geek dating!
What will this do to all the planes flying around the US; the earlybird holiday travelers, as well as the normal Thanksgiving holiday travelers tomorrow...
Is there anything to be afraid of?
Geek dating!
First on the list, I suspect, would be...
'When is Quicktime player components going to be open sourced?'
I don't think that's going to happen, any time soon. For those people who want it as a matter of convenience (do everything in Linux!), that's all it is, a convenience.
For those who would need the Quicktime functionality... I guess it's too bad. For each OS their respective strengths, and movie/audio/media happens to be an Apple thing.
For those who would want that codecs for tinkering/development purposes... isn't that what Vorbis is all about?
'When are you going to port Aqua to the Intel world?'
We have, but since we don't make Intel/AMD branded hardware, we won't be selling the software. We would get millions in sales, as a secure, stable, BSD based Intel-platform OS, without any sales of hardware(currently), which means the only revenue model we could pursue would be updates and upgrades to the OS... Therefore shortchanging the R&D and development innovations of a floppy-less iMac, the FireWire enabled devices, the Airport capable systems, the long-battery life portables, the fanless designs, etc.
'How about your PDA plans?'
We are currently researching and developing a PDA strategy.
Now that those questions are out of the way... Hopefully more interesting philosophical/technical/social questions can be asked.
Geek dating!