It's not such a stupid idea. There are at least three applications for this technology: Server clusters Render farms Storage arrays
Benefits: Zero (essentially) maintenance. All you do if you need more capacity is plug in another 'cube'. If the cube breaks, you send it back to IBM or whatever and they fix it and return it to you. It handles all the balancing and communications, and that's it.
From the outside it's like memory sticks in a motherboard; plug in a new stick and increase your ram. Here it's plug in a new cube and increase your capacity.
Is that such a stupid idea?
What do you think is so stupid? If an idea is stupid that means you must imagine there is a better way to implement it.
All IBM has to do to trump you is create desktop sized blocks with 2TB storage per block. Given that the system needs no video system and much simpler motherboard, they can either make the cubes smaller or store more, so on a bits to bits comparison a 2TB cube is smaller than a 2TB desktop.
So to reiterate my post: Which is the simpler solution, create an array of 2TB cubes or use your solution?
The only correlation is that the program is so simple in concept that it is essentially stupid to ban.
The ultimate in stupidity along these lines is if the RIAA and MPAA got PROGRAMMING banned as an activity because programming languages and tools induces copyright infringement.
80 GB storage 6MB mp3 file 14 songs per CD 975 CDs $10 per CD $9,750 to full load the damn thing
So let's flip the logic.
What if, IF, you already have 50 CDs? 200 CDs? 300 CDs?
If you have $1,000 in music, or $2,000, or $3,000, the cost of an iPod is CHUMP. What's $249 for 4g? $299 for 20g? That's essentially nothing when you consider the ability to access almost 1,000 CDs at any one time.
Where before the iPod you could only access 1, maybe 10, CDs depending on your mp3 player.
Nothing is lost just because we're pumping all that engineering energy into F1. The great part is that F1 is self sustaining without the need for TAXES and government subsidies.
That's like saying, "Imagine what would happen if all the engineering energy that goes into video games suddenly went into artificial intelligence -- we'd be the last generation without smart computers." because that is wrong. The energy that goes into video games will show up elsewhere, and as video games get more advanced then so will the AI, and as AI gets more advanced so will the video games.
So don't begrudge other people their sports and their money. You're not that far off from people who complain, "Imagine what would happen if all the resources that go into NASA suddenly went into our economy -- we'd never go hungry again." Which is also false. The efforts put into our space program return to us 1000 fold (I think you can appreciate that)
It works just as well at sharing RedHat ISOs, trailers, software demos, music, movies, or games.
Just like a VCR doesn't know if a tape is bootleg or not.
So to be perfectly clear, a tracker has one single purpose, to make a file A downloadable for users.
The issue of legality is purely a matter for the downloaders and the initial seeder. It could be argued that hosters, people running the trackers, can be told to take down trackers for illegal content, but that's no different than telling eBay to take down auctions for illegal content. eBay itself is not illegal.
Where did you read in my post that I was talking about aesthetic performance, coolness?
You read what you wanted to disagree with. I never said anything about 'aesthetic performance' or sacrificing 'functionality' for 'aesthetic performance'.
My post was about how purely, rawly, supremely functional the iPod is compared to any other mp3 player out there. If functionality was measured by the ability to play music, store music, reach music, and access music, then the iPod and iTunes are unbeatable, and I do believe the market knows this.
The iPod is functional, and that is why there is a price premium. It sacrifices nothing to the cause of functionality; thus the scrollwheel, the uncluttered interface, the effortless interface, the easy interface.
But I'm biased because I own an iPod. Perhaps other MP3 players have reached the same level of competence as the iPod?
Considering Apple computers don't rely on Centrino or Intel chipsets, I'm not sure why they were even thrown into the blurb.
A 20% shortage translates into higher prices or loss in profit for everyone involved (except in this case Apple because their chipsets don't go through Intel).
Why do you even assume it's about image and self esteem or feeling better about yourself?
An iPod is undeniably sleek and elegant when compared to everything that came before it, and many that came after it.
The same with Apple computers.
There are TECHNICAL reasons why elegance is a worthwhile attribute for any device, not just mp3 players or computers. Sleekness requires definition, but elegance has it's own context: Gracefulness.
You can also define things by the inverse, in this case elegance: Clumsiness.
So if a computer is graceful and not clumsy, I think anyone would agree that it is better than a computer that is clumsy and not graceful.
Yeah, how come no gunmetal blue or brushed steel or tortiseshell or onyx or pearl or mica or walnut finishes on my mp3 player? Surely polycarb+stainless steel is not the PINNACLE of consumer design?
Of course I'm sure we'll see some of those finishes on the iPod SE at some point next year!
Drop 200gb of music into iTunes and it will happily store it into it's library.
iTunes is merely the interface through which the iPod shines. Nothing about the situation negates the strengths of iTunes->iPod. Or if you want an analogy here, iTunes is to DC, BT, Kazaa, and eMule as a phonebook is to a service directory. iTunes just makes all 200gb of music easily accessible, and the fact that you can synch all this music to the iPod makes the music on an iPod also easily accessible.
Uh, 4gb hd with 8hr is $250 TODAY. In a year it will be 8gb for $200 with 12hr battery life. In two years it will be 20gb for $150 with 20hr battery life. In 3 years it will be 30gb for $125 with 25hr. In four years it will be 30gb for $100 with 30hr battery life.
But it will still be a hard drive. The 'flash' version will be, if 1gb cf is $100 today, it will be $400 for 4gb, sans mp3 player. So if it were in a mp3 player it might cost $600 today. So by the time you get a 40gb solid state mp3 player for $100, it will be, I bet 9 years.
Man, that's a rugged cd player if it will last you 9 years. What are you, stingy?:P
And I think the attitude, "Nobody else matters," is suicidal and self defeating.
That statement fundamentally reduces to "Nobody matters," when you aggregate it over an entire population unless you take the stance, "Everybody matters,". Everyone can't just exclude themselves from the population, so either nobody matters or everybody matters or some matter more than others; then who do you choose who matters?
I believe everybody matters, and because of that, *I* matter. And because *I* matter, then we have to look out for ourself. A cleaner, safer, world is in my best interests, and it's got a nice side effect that it is also beneficial for everyone else.
Work involved: Creating and naming folders after artists and after albums.
Do you also name all your songs, or do you let your ripper do that?
With iTunes I do none of that: I only do one thing, and that is hit the button to rip. So by my definition you are doing more work: You create, label, and name folders, and you copy and drag folders.
I only do two of the same things to accomplish that: Insert the CD and hit rip, and plug in the iPod. My only work? Hitting the button to rip.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is simplicity in management:
More info provided by IBM.
No wire management
No network management
No device management
It should be no more difficult to administer than a pile of Lego bricks.
I think with this design they've accomplished this.
Read up more about it. I think all your issues are addressed and moot.
It's not such a stupid idea. There are at least three applications for this technology:
Server clusters
Render farms
Storage arrays
Benefits: Zero (essentially) maintenance. All you do if you need more capacity is plug in another 'cube'. If the cube breaks, you send it back to IBM or whatever and they fix it and return it to you. It handles all the balancing and communications, and that's it.
From the outside it's like memory sticks in a motherboard; plug in a new stick and increase your ram.
Here it's plug in a new cube and increase your capacity.
Is that such a stupid idea?
What do you think is so stupid? If an idea is stupid that means you must imagine there is a better way to implement it.
All IBM has to do to trump you is create desktop sized blocks with 2TB storage per block. Given that the system needs no video system and much simpler motherboard, they can either make the cubes smaller or store more, so on a bits to bits comparison a 2TB cube is smaller than a 2TB desktop.
So to reiterate my post: Which is the simpler solution, create an array of 2TB cubes or use your solution?
Easy enough. So make a cube the size of a desktop case with 2TB inside.
Which is simpler? A cube made of 64 2TB units, or wiring up 64 of your desktops together?
Since Firewire has support for:
IP for 1394
Power over Firewire
Mass storage
But at some point you have to hook up a wallwart to get power somewhere...
The only correlation is that the program is so simple in concept that it is essentially stupid to ban.
The ultimate in stupidity along these lines is if the RIAA and MPAA got PROGRAMMING banned as an activity because programming languages and tools induces copyright infringement.
Have you tried eBay?
80 GB storage
6MB mp3 file
14 songs per CD
975 CDs
$10 per CD
$9,750 to full load the damn thing
So let's flip the logic.
What if, IF, you already have 50 CDs? 200 CDs? 300 CDs?
If you have $1,000 in music, or $2,000, or $3,000, the cost of an iPod is CHUMP. What's $249 for 4g? $299 for 20g? That's essentially nothing when you consider the ability to access almost 1,000 CDs at any one time.
Where before the iPod you could only access 1, maybe 10, CDs depending on your mp3 player.
Nothing is lost just because we're pumping all that engineering energy into F1. The great part is that F1 is self sustaining without the need for TAXES and government subsidies.
That's like saying, "Imagine what would happen if all the engineering energy that goes into video games suddenly went into artificial intelligence -- we'd be the last generation without smart computers." because that is wrong. The energy that goes into video games will show up elsewhere, and as video games get more advanced then so will the AI, and as AI gets more advanced so will the video games.
So don't begrudge other people their sports and their money. You're not that far off from people who complain, "Imagine what would happen if all the resources that go into NASA suddenly went into our economy -- we'd never go hungry again." Which is also false. The efforts put into our space program return to us 1000 fold (I think you can appreciate that)
It works just as well at sharing RedHat ISOs, trailers, software demos, music, movies, or games.
Just like a VCR doesn't know if a tape is bootleg or not.
So to be perfectly clear, a tracker has one single purpose, to make a file A downloadable for users.
The issue of legality is purely a matter for the downloaders and the initial seeder. It could be argued that hosters, people running the trackers, can be told to take down trackers for illegal content, but that's no different than telling eBay to take down auctions for illegal content. eBay itself is not illegal.
I thought it was Compaq that commoditized the PC, but IBM that made commoditization possible?
Where did you read in my post that I was talking about aesthetic performance, coolness?
You read what you wanted to disagree with. I never said anything about 'aesthetic performance' or sacrificing 'functionality' for 'aesthetic performance'.
My post was about how purely, rawly, supremely functional the iPod is compared to any other mp3 player out there. If functionality was measured by the ability to play music, store music, reach music, and access music, then the iPod and iTunes are unbeatable, and I do believe the market knows this.
The iPod is functional, and that is why there is a price premium. It sacrifices nothing to the cause of functionality; thus the scrollwheel, the uncluttered interface, the effortless interface, the easy interface.
But I'm biased because I own an iPod. Perhaps other MP3 players have reached the same level of competence as the iPod?
Considering Apple computers don't rely on Centrino or Intel chipsets, I'm not sure why they were even thrown into the blurb.
A 20% shortage translates into higher prices or loss in profit for everyone involved (except in this case Apple because their chipsets don't go through Intel).
iTunes doesn't have DRM.
There is no DRM bargain.
You pop in a CD and it rips to unencumbered WAV, AAC, ALE, or MP3 encoded files.
NO DRM.
Because the owner of one realizes that the producer of object produces other objects.
This is totally NOT different than people switching from Mac to Sony because they fell in love with their Sony DVD player. It's the same logic!
If you bought a shirt from Macy's and were satisfied, why would it be an odd correlation if you went to Macy's to buy jewelry or some barware?
Since when has elegance and 'sleekness' been bad?
Why do you even assume it's about image and self esteem or feeling better about yourself?
An iPod is undeniably sleek and elegant when compared to everything that came before it, and many that came after it.
The same with Apple computers.
There are TECHNICAL reasons why elegance is a worthwhile attribute for any device, not just mp3 players or computers. Sleekness requires definition, but elegance has it's own context:
Gracefulness.
You can also define things by the inverse, in this case elegance:
Clumsiness.
So if a computer is graceful and not clumsy, I think anyone would agree that it is better than a computer that is clumsy and not graceful.
Because DVDs have css DRM. Do you also ignore VHS with their macrovision (copyright control, not DRM, but the same thing?)
Here's the part where you're ignorant and stupid.
iTunes DOESN'T have DRM.
iTunes Music Store does, but not iTunes.
So the music you rip is DRM free. All the mp3 files are plain mp3 files. All the wavs, aacs, and ale files are unencumbered.
Why aren't you using iTunes then?
That's why I bought my PowerMac, iPod, and PowerBook (in reverse order).
Yeah, how come no gunmetal blue or brushed steel or tortiseshell or onyx or pearl or mica or walnut finishes on my mp3 player? Surely polycarb+stainless steel is not the PINNACLE of consumer design?
Of course I'm sure we'll see some of those finishes on the iPod SE at some point next year!
Drop 200gb of music into iTunes and it will happily store it into it's library.
iTunes is merely the interface through which the iPod shines. Nothing about the situation negates the strengths of iTunes->iPod. Or if you want an analogy here, iTunes is to DC, BT, Kazaa, and eMule as a phonebook is to a service directory. iTunes just makes all 200gb of music easily accessible, and the fact that you can synch all this music to the iPod makes the music on an iPod also easily accessible.
Uh, 4gb hd with 8hr is $250 TODAY. In a year it will be 8gb for $200 with 12hr battery life. In two years it will be 20gb for $150 with 20hr battery life. In 3 years it will be 30gb for $125 with 25hr. In four years it will be 30gb for $100 with 30hr battery life.
:P
But it will still be a hard drive. The 'flash' version will be, if 1gb cf is $100 today, it will be $400 for 4gb, sans mp3 player. So if it were in a mp3 player it might cost $600 today. So by the time you get a 40gb solid state mp3 player for $100, it will be, I bet 9 years.
Man, that's a rugged cd player if it will last you 9 years. What are you, stingy?
Your statement is merely a smokescreen.
The issue then is: Regardless of how or why the climate changes, do we have the resources to affect it to our benefit?
Because to not affect it to our benefit when we have the power to would be rather a waste I think.
Put it more locally: If you could make your life better, would you?
And I think the attitude, "Nobody else matters," is suicidal and self defeating.
That statement fundamentally reduces to "Nobody matters," when you aggregate it over an entire population unless you take the stance, "Everybody matters,". Everyone can't just exclude themselves from the population, so either nobody matters or everybody matters or some matter more than others; then who do you choose who matters?
I believe everybody matters, and because of that, *I* matter. And because *I* matter, then we have to look out for ourself. A cleaner, safer, world is in my best interests, and it's got a nice side effect that it is also beneficial for everyone else.
Hmm, $235 for a Creative Zen touch from WalMart.
I'm sure they're cheaper for Creative than that.
$100,000,000 means they can give away 442,477 Zen's at WalMart prices.
When you consider that Apple sold, what, 2 million last quarter? Just giving away $100m worth would catapult them into the 25% marketshare range.
Work involved:
Creating and naming folders after artists and after albums.
Do you also name all your songs, or do you let your ripper do that?
With iTunes I do none of that: I only do one thing, and that is hit the button to rip. So by my definition you are doing more work: You create, label, and name folders, and you copy and drag folders.
I only do two of the same things to accomplish that: Insert the CD and hit rip, and plug in the iPod. My only work? Hitting the button to rip.