Price-Performance of "iCubes" and other Macs
on
X On OSX Now Free
·
· Score: 5
If only those iCubes didn't cost twice what they should, this may just be a great platform yet.
What should they cost?
I hear this complaint quite a bit. It seems that one of the enshrined bits of common wisdom (or myth?) when it comes to PC buying is that Mac HW costs more for the performance you get.
Mac fans counter that it's the same or better, and give the following reasons:
1) even though PPC clock speeds are slower, programs run faster because the processor can do more per clock cycle. I've been told to expect twice the performance from a G3 than a similarly clocked PIII.
2) productivity gain by less futzing about with hardware, due to standardization...
Comments? Maybe even hard numbers? Balanced reasoning (ha!)?
A friend of mine submitted this to slashdot weeks, ago, but it got rejected. It's some comments by an unsigned but locally very succesful artist on the benefits of Napster. It's fairly pro-napster -- and, interestingly enough, was made during a Senate field hearing.
Re:Your Vote Is Already Wasted If You're Uninforme
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
Point taken. There are other good organizations for keeping one actually informed b'sides vote-smart.org. I saw a booklet given out by the League of Women Voters this summer 'round primary time, and I thought it was very helpful. I think they CAN be trusted as much as anyone can. More people using LWV as a resource would probably result in better informed voters.
As far as mailings go, I was primarily refering to candidate direct mailings, which is what most people 'round my parts receive. I don't think they can be trusted. The mainstream media can't be trusted because 1) politicians are more and more skilled at USING it and 2) they treat political contests like football games, not discussing policy, but rather the "score", political strategy, and occasional well-rehearsed soundbites.
LWV is great. Vote-smart.org is just another way to investigate a candidate. Their generalized issues test provides a way to see how their tendancies stack up to yours without rhetoric. Their campaign finance records can indicate to you whose interests they probably will represent. It's a tool, and there are others.
ARG! NO! Don't "just vote" if you don't know anyth
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
Arrrrg!
I've already said this once in this thread, but I can't let this pass. If you "just vote" for somebody, you're part of the problem.
You wonder why politicians pander and spin? Because most citizens of this fine country don't subject them to any real scrutiny. They don't study policy at all. They can be pandered to and spun about quite easily. If you can be, too, then your uninformed vote elects people who shouldn't be.
Your Vote Is Already Wasted If You're Uninformed
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 3
I tried testing this idea in the furnace of slashdot a while ago, but got no comment. I'll try again.
"Your Vote" is already wasted and skews the election if you're uninformed. I'm going to define "informed" as making active efforts to gain an understanding of candidates -- passive receiving of ads, mailings, and any other major media outlet won't do. These are the places where politicians carefully polish their image and deliberately choose their words. You won't learn anything but what they (or maybe their opponents, who may be less credible) want you to know about them (and chances are you won't learn anything about a candidate who isn't a Democrat or Republican).
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason or actual scientific citation. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. You have to learn something about policy.
Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data collected for which there is no correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If YOU know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find
politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but
more than we can get into here.)
So... where exactly CAN we get into this?
Good grief, one area where geeks could positively affect policy, and we don't get more info?
There was a "field hearing" in Utah about two weeks ago on Napster, held by Senator Hatch. Shawn Fanning (wrote the beast) was there, and a few others. A friend of mine wrote the piece above, and submitted it to slashdot, but to no avail. Give it a read; it's interesting. Among other things, it indicates Hatch supports Napster, but wants seems to want to see ASCAP like royalty schemes (which really isn't too unreasonable -- my only concern is once you get the big boys involved, it'll turn into a payola oriented media...)
Project Vote Smart has something they call the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test or something like that). It's basically a crib sheet for voters that shows candidate support for various policies (though it could take as much as 10-15 minutes to wade through, far exceeding the attention span of the average voter).
Now, our main two contestants (W and Gore) have declined to answer the questions. This isn't too surprising, considering they have much more to gain by continuing to engage in the spin-centered tactics they now employ than providing actual info. Because the people at vote smart are dilligent, they've filled out NPATs for W and Gore from public statements they've made, and left blanks where there's no public statement.
But guess what? Nader didn't fill out an NPAT! Despite being contacted repeatedly by vote-smart people, including relative political luminaries Michael Dukkakis and Geraldine Ferraro. Nader has almost NOTHING to gain by using the same spin tactics that our mainstream friends do. His entire campaign base really should be people who are actually semi-informed. What's going on here? Nader starting to dodge?
Harry Browne did fill one out incidentally, but after reading it, I know I can't vote for him, even though he gets big bonus points for actually putting his views on a clear record.
Take a look at the list. I think you'll be surprised at the sheer number of candidates -- I couldn't take the time to go through each one (so I basically weeded out everyone who couldn't come up with a running mate). And it's interesting that those who fill out the NPAT are the ones who have the least publicity. Stardom going to your head, Ralph?
One of the Pioneers (and I beleive it was 10)
was launched on my birthday in 1972 (Mar 2). I've always sortof identified with it. Though I suppose we're obviously not life-force linked in some odd sci-fi way, because I'm still typ
Alright, I'm going to test this idea in the furnace of slashdot.
If you haven't seriously studied election candidates -- that is, done something well beyond what comes by in the newspapers or on TV or radio ads -- you shouldn't vote. At all.
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data that indicates there isn't a correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If you know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
Cell Phones In Ear... Farenheit 451 anyone?
on
DoCoMos Finger Phone
·
· Score: 3
That's right, you know that Farenheit 451 is about book burning... but did you know that it's about pervasisve media too?
"Sooner or later, wireless phones will look more like earplugs, and people will wear them," Fukumoto says. "We just have to establish a culture that registers an idea with people that wearing a device is a cool thing."
. Remind anyone of "the SeaShell" that Mildred (Montag the fireman's wife) wears in the book? It was acceptable in their culture. How about a FREE ear-cellphone, folks -- all you have to do is accept continuous programming?
Next thing you know, we'll have huge flat screen TVs you can work into your walls....
MCI has not only slammed people I know, they've
switched people from one long distance plan to another VERY expensive (sans frequent flyer miles, Hemos) plan, without notifying the account holder. I beleive they're going through a lawsuit about such practices.
In short, I haven't run up against an ethical phone company yet.
For long distance, though, some of those rechargeable calling cards are getting pretty cheap.
This could make a great Newsreel. Remember Newsreels? The "current event" programming (ahem: propaganda, sometimes) that used to run before feature films in theatres. Well, I don't remember them either, because I was born in the 1970s, but I visited the Smithsonian museum in DC not too long ago and saw a bunch of these. I really enjoy some previews, but sometimes I think it'd be nice to have something Newsreel like beforehand. This "birth of a supercomputer" thing loosely reminds me of seeing some of the "look at the Hoover Dam being built" newsreels. Sure beats reading the infoblurbgraphic in USA today.
Build and view the model of a room you want to simulate the acoustics of (note... must have surround system too). If you leave out the acoustics, you have the virtual site tour that all real estate agents already think you can put on a web site.
Really, there are probably a number of CAD applications that could benefit somewhat from this. This way, you wouldn't have to change your virtual point of view; you could just change your real pov (wait... is that an advantage?:)
OK, I'm sure a few of you out there watched Robotech growing up. There was an episode where Max and Mirya fight on a simulator that pops up in from of them in 3 D. That's the game I'd want to see.
Anyone else remember playing this game until their hands ached from those black and orange
joysticks?
How in the world did you use the joystick to
manuever for refueling? Even sticking the lift factor on 1, the keyboard seemed to have an advantage (OK, I didn't actually own joysticks, but whatever).
Speech synthesis, 16 color graphics, and who knows where the enemy ships are going to come out on the screen? (well, we all did after we figured out the pattern, but you have to admit, the first time some of those Urbites came out the back it scared you!)
If LinuxPPC/YDL got sound support and better video support
I'm posting this from a UMAX s900 (PowerMac 9500 clone) running LinuxPPC. I'm listening to some mp3s, too. Obviously, there's some kind of sound support. I didn't change any of it from the default install, either (well, OK, I've recompiled Apache and PHP and MySQL to work together, but I haven't done anything with sound).
Now, video support is sortof a problem. When running Gnome, many of my icons look like they've accidentally been run through an inversion/pixelation/noise filter. And I keep being told my X server does not support DPMS. But by and large, things are OK.
People need to start getting a clue: this kind of software is a _service_ not a commodity, and even with an investment in expensive collaborative environments, you're still going to need the services. So why not start with Free Software, and then get the services?
Frankly, sometimes I wonder why people keep creating these collaboritve environments, community servers, whatever you want to call them.
And then to claim they're revolutionary in any way.... that's a travesty. They all do pretty much the same thing: you create forms, which have data that go into databases or files (with perhaps some processing along the way), and then, the appropriate data comes out on some other page.
Most of this stuff can be done by a small team of good programmers in a few months. The abstraction is largely for the clueless... but many of the clueless won't figure out how to use the abstraction anyway, and many can also just hire a small team of good programmers.
Case in point: Broadvision, and my employer. My employer is HUGE. Big enough to have scads of programmers -- and some of them are essentially sitting around doing nothing. But rather than asking these programmers to implement some forms that non-tech employees could fill out to develop web pages, they went out and got courted by Broadvision and bought a whole package from them for who knows how much and sent the _managers_ and other non-technical folks off for training in it. With 2-3 months of PHP or PERL and Database work and I could have duplicated the functionality they wanted. Instead, they spent 2-3 months training half a dozen people (from my dept. alone) who probably still don't get it. And the funny thing is, Broadvision will probably get ongoing consulting fees (I guess this is why people produce software).
Let's stop
working on legitimate OSS projects and help the Recording Industry come up with a better consumer trap.
I've said this before and gotten flamed into oblivion for it, but I think it needs to be said again:
Something like SDMI might not be all that bad.
We in the Open Source Community have been busy with things ranging from effective (encouraging subscription models, bulding a new codec, refining street-performer-like schemes, etc) to things, um, less-effective (yelling "information wants to be free!" and defending the tactics of Napster).
What I wonder about is why we haven't sat down and thought about how we could create something that would actually allow those who so desire to have some control over the destiny of their content.
I'm not talking about Iron Clad control, which I'm sure most of the current heirarchy in the recording industry wants. Nothing "uncrackable". We don't have a foolproof copy-protection system now, and we're doing fine. What I'm thinking is copy protection that is:
1) just strong enough to encourage Joe Average off the street to buy rather than make copies
2) allows fair use afterwards
#1, of course, has to be done in conjunction with a pricing structure and preview system that will support it. #1 is just an extra push to encourage the consumer to support an artist.
So, why not? And please don't say "but the artists won't see any of their money. The evil record companies will take it all." For those who go through record companies, that's probably true. But there will be some who won't....
Well, when asking "Are virtual communities real?" just examine the meaning of the word virtual and you'll see the difficulty. Virtual _means_ not (quite) real. Quasi-real, if you will. Having a certain functionality or aspect of the real thing, but being sort of a simalacrum.
I'd say no community that is solely virtual is really complete. I can think of several communities who have alot of their dialogue and commerce in a "virtual" way. The contemporary a'capella society of america was one of the first I ran into (or realized this about). I came into contact with it through usenet (rec.music.acapella), but quickly was introduced into a local organization, and attended conventions. There was a real a'capella community that transacted much of its communications virtually. But you could -- and this is key, you very likely WOULD -- get to meet others face to face, if you reached a certain point of participation.
(One of my Math teachers saw the "scientific" community this way, too: he had one-way virtual dialogues with Newton and Euclid. And he even saw religion this way, too: one way dialogues with Isaiah, Luke, and others).
I've heard the "settlement" theory. What I keep wondering, though, is why Apple settled for that little. True they were really struggling, then, and needed Office. But I would have thought they could get a huge amount of damages. $250 million ain't it.
We're looking for suggestions in 3 different price tiers.
Cheaper Then a Playstation 2 ($300 or less)
Cheaper Then a Playstation 2's rumored eBay sale value ($301-$1500)
Unlimited (Mommy, can I have a stealth bomber for Christmas?)
Well, what I'd like most is:
1) things in the unlimited price category to be in the $300-$1500 category
2) things in the $300-$1500 group to cost in the under $300 dolar group
3) things in the under $300 dollar group to be all under $20.
But I know, we're supposed to wish for objects and not events (if we didn't wish for objects then what would happen to the economy? And if we were wishing for events, we'd wish for the dismantling of the WTO, WIPO, MPAA, RIAA, and several other TLAs).
So as for objects:
A Kurzweil k2000/2500 series synth, with all the trimmings. Or something equivalent, though I doubt it exists. About $1000 used to $4000 new, these are the deepest sound-producing boxes I have ever played with -- and yet it doesn't take long to start making music with them. And music making is a pleasant break from coding.
Slashdot Mirror
If only those iCubes didn't cost twice what they should, this may just be a great platform yet.
What should they cost?
I hear this complaint quite a bit. It seems that one of the enshrined bits of common wisdom (or myth?) when it comes to PC buying is that Mac HW costs more for the performance you get.
Mac fans counter that it's the same or better, and give the following reasons:
1) even though PPC clock speeds are slower, programs run faster because the processor can do more per clock cycle. I've been told to expect twice the performance from a G3 than a similarly clocked PIII.
2) productivity gain by less futzing about with hardware, due to standardization...
Comments? Maybe even hard numbers? Balanced reasoning (ha!)?
A friend of mine submitted this to slashdot weeks, ago, but it got rejected. It's some comments by an unsigned but locally very succesful artist on the benefits of Napster. It's fairly pro-napster -- and, interestingly enough, was made during a Senate field hearing.
Point taken. There are other good organizations for keeping one actually informed b'sides vote-smart.org. I saw a booklet given out by the League of Women Voters this summer 'round primary time, and I thought it was very helpful. I think they CAN be trusted as much as anyone can. More people using LWV as a resource would probably result in better informed voters.
As far as mailings go, I was primarily refering to candidate direct mailings, which is what most people 'round my parts receive. I don't think they can be trusted. The mainstream media can't be trusted because 1) politicians are more and more skilled at USING it and 2) they treat political contests like football games, not discussing policy, but rather the "score", political strategy, and occasional well-rehearsed soundbites.
LWV is great. Vote-smart.org is just another way to investigate a candidate. Their generalized issues test provides a way to see how their tendancies stack up to yours without rhetoric. Their campaign finance records can indicate to you whose interests they probably will represent. It's a tool, and there are others.
Arrrrg!
I've already said this once in this thread, but I can't let this pass. If you "just vote" for somebody, you're part of the problem.
You wonder why politicians pander and spin? Because most citizens of this fine country don't subject them to any real scrutiny. They don't study policy at all. They can be pandered to and spun about quite easily. If you can be, too, then your uninformed vote elects people who shouldn't be.
Your Vote Is Already Wasted If You're Uninformed. And worse. It dilutes the votes of those who are.
I tried testing this idea in the furnace of slashdot a while ago, but got no comment. I'll try again.
"Your Vote" is already wasted and skews the election if you're uninformed. I'm going to define "informed" as making active efforts to gain an understanding of candidates -- passive receiving of ads, mailings, and any other major media outlet won't do. These are the places where politicians carefully polish their image and deliberately choose their words. You won't learn anything but what they (or maybe their opponents, who may be less credible) want you to know about them (and chances are you won't learn anything about a candidate who isn't a Democrat or Republican).
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason or actual scientific citation. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. You have to learn something about policy.
Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data collected for which there is no correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If YOU know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find
politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but
more than we can get into here.)
So... where exactly CAN we get into this?
Good grief, one area where geeks could positively affect policy, and we don't get more info?
There was a "field hearing" in Utah about two weeks ago on Napster, held by Senator Hatch. Shawn Fanning (wrote the beast) was there, and a few others. A friend of mine wrote the piece above, and submitted it to slashdot, but to no avail. Give it a read; it's interesting. Among other things, it indicates Hatch supports Napster, but wants seems to want to see ASCAP like royalty schemes (which really isn't too unreasonable -- my only concern is once you get the big boys involved, it'll turn into a payola oriented media...)
Project Vote Smart has something they call the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test or something like that). It's basically a crib sheet for voters that shows candidate support for various policies (though it could take as much as 10-15 minutes to wade through, far exceeding the attention span of the average voter).
Now, our main two contestants (W and Gore) have declined to answer the questions. This isn't too surprising, considering they have much more to gain by continuing to engage in the spin-centered tactics they now employ than providing actual info. Because the people at vote smart are dilligent, they've filled out NPATs for W and Gore from public statements they've made, and left blanks where there's no public statement.
But guess what? Nader didn't fill out an NPAT! Despite being contacted repeatedly by vote-smart people, including relative political luminaries Michael Dukkakis and Geraldine Ferraro. Nader has almost NOTHING to gain by using the same spin tactics that our mainstream friends do. His entire campaign base really should be people who are actually semi-informed. What's going on here? Nader starting to dodge?
Harry Browne did fill one out incidentally, but after reading it, I know I can't vote for him, even though he gets big bonus points for actually putting his views on a clear record.
Take a look at the list. I think you'll be surprised at the sheer number of candidates -- I couldn't take the time to go through each one (so I basically weeded out everyone who couldn't come up with a running mate). And it's interesting that those who fill out the NPAT are the ones who have the least publicity. Stardom going to your head, Ralph?
One of the Pioneers (and I beleive it was 10)
was launched on my birthday in 1972 (Mar 2). I've always sortof identified with it. Though I suppose we're obviously not life-force linked in some odd sci-fi way, because I'm still typ
Alright, I'm going to test this idea in the furnace of slashdot.
If you haven't seriously studied election candidates -- that is, done something well beyond what comes by in the newspapers or on TV or radio ads -- you shouldn't vote. At all.
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data that indicates there isn't a correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If you know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
That's right, you know that Farenheit 451 is about book burning... but did you know that it's about pervasisve media too?
"Sooner or later, wireless phones will look more like earplugs, and people will wear them," Fukumoto says. "We just have to establish a culture that registers an idea with people that wearing a device is a cool thing."
. Remind anyone of "the SeaShell" that Mildred (Montag the fireman's wife) wears in the book? It was acceptable in their culture. How about a FREE ear-cellphone, folks -- all you have to do is accept continuous programming?
Next thing you know, we'll have huge flat screen TVs you can work into your walls....
Not just MCI. Qwest as well.
MCI has not only slammed people I know, they've
switched people from one long distance plan to another VERY expensive (sans frequent flyer miles, Hemos) plan, without notifying the account holder. I beleive they're going through a lawsuit about such practices.
In short, I haven't run up against an ethical phone company yet.
For long distance, though, some of those rechargeable calling cards are getting pretty cheap.
I still don't understand exactly who a publisher is, and what they do (other than collect money).
Examples?
Wouldn't a Record Company BE a publisher?
I think ASCAP and BMI and all collect the fees, and then redistribute them to artists and publishers, which may include record companies.
This could make a great Newsreel. Remember Newsreels? The "current event" programming (ahem: propaganda, sometimes) that used to run before feature films in theatres. Well, I don't remember them either, because I was born in the 1970s, but I visited the Smithsonian museum in DC not too long ago and saw a bunch of these. I really enjoy some previews, but sometimes I think it'd be nice to have something Newsreel like beforehand. This "birth of a supercomputer" thing loosely reminds me of seeing some of the "look at the Hoover Dam being built" newsreels. Sure beats reading the infoblurbgraphic in USA today.
Just some random thoughts.
Build and view the model of a room you want to simulate the acoustics of (note... must have surround system too). If you leave out the acoustics, you have the virtual site tour that all real estate agents already think you can put on a web site.
:)
Really, there are probably a number of CAD applications that could benefit somewhat from this. This way, you wouldn't have to change your virtual point of view; you could just change your real pov (wait... is that an advantage?
OK, I'm sure a few of you out there watched Robotech growing up. There was an episode where Max and Mirya fight on a simulator that pops up in from of them in 3 D. That's the game I'd want to see.
Anyone else remember playing this game until their hands ached from those black and orange
joysticks?
How in the world did you use the joystick to
manuever for refueling? Even sticking the lift factor on 1, the keyboard seemed to have an advantage (OK, I didn't actually own joysticks, but whatever).
Speech synthesis, 16 color graphics, and who knows where the enemy ships are going to come out on the screen? (well, we all did after we figured out the pattern, but you have to admit, the first time some of those Urbites came out the back it scared you!)
Ah, those were the days.
If LinuxPPC/YDL got sound support and better video support
I'm posting this from a UMAX s900 (PowerMac 9500 clone) running LinuxPPC. I'm listening to some mp3s, too. Obviously, there's some kind of sound support. I didn't change any of it from the default install, either (well, OK, I've recompiled Apache and PHP and MySQL to work together, but I haven't done anything with sound).
Now, video support is sortof a problem. When running Gnome, many of my icons look like they've accidentally been run through an inversion/pixelation/noise filter. And I keep being told my X server does not support DPMS. But by and large, things are OK.
People need to start getting a clue: this kind of software is a _service_ not a commodity, and even with an investment in expensive collaborative environments, you're still going to need the services. So why not start with Free Software, and then get the services?
Frankly, sometimes I wonder why people keep creating these collaboritve environments, community servers, whatever you want to call them.
And then to claim they're revolutionary in any way.... that's a travesty. They all do pretty much the same thing: you create forms, which have data that go into databases or files (with perhaps some processing along the way), and then, the appropriate data comes out on some other page.
Most of this stuff can be done by a small team of good programmers in a few months. The abstraction is largely for the clueless... but many of the clueless won't figure out how to use the abstraction anyway, and many can also just hire a small team of good programmers.
Case in point: Broadvision, and my employer. My employer is HUGE. Big enough to have scads of programmers -- and some of them are essentially sitting around doing nothing. But rather than asking these programmers to implement some forms that non-tech employees could fill out to develop web pages, they went out and got courted by Broadvision and bought a whole package from them for who knows how much and sent the _managers_ and other non-technical folks off for training in it. With 2-3 months of PHP or PERL and Database work and I could have duplicated the functionality they wanted. Instead, they spent 2-3 months training half a dozen people (from my dept. alone) who probably still don't get it. And the funny thing is, Broadvision will probably get ongoing consulting fees (I guess this is why people produce software).
Let's stop
working on legitimate OSS projects and help the Recording Industry come up with a better consumer trap.
I've said this before and gotten flamed into oblivion for it, but I think it needs to be said again:
Something like SDMI might not be all that bad.
We in the Open Source Community have been busy with things ranging from effective (encouraging subscription models, bulding a new codec, refining street-performer-like schemes, etc) to things, um, less-effective (yelling "information wants to be free!" and defending the tactics of Napster).
What I wonder about is why we haven't sat down and thought about how we could create something that would actually allow those who so desire to have some control over the destiny of their content.
I'm not talking about Iron Clad control, which I'm sure most of the current heirarchy in the recording industry wants. Nothing "uncrackable". We don't have a foolproof copy-protection system now, and we're doing fine. What I'm thinking is copy protection that is:
1) just strong enough to encourage Joe Average off the street to buy rather than make copies
2) allows fair use afterwards
#1, of course, has to be done in conjunction with a pricing structure and preview system that will support it. #1 is just an extra push to encourage the consumer to support an artist.
So, why not? And please don't say "but the artists won't see any of their money. The evil record companies will take it all." For those who go through record companies, that's probably true. But there will be some who won't....
This sounds a lot like software for creating virtual communities, which we have just learned are a myth.
Well, when asking "Are virtual communities real?" just examine the meaning of the word virtual and you'll see the difficulty. Virtual _means_ not (quite) real. Quasi-real, if you will. Having a certain functionality or aspect of the real thing, but being sort of a simalacrum.
I'd say no community that is solely virtual is really complete. I can think of several communities who have alot of their dialogue and commerce in a "virtual" way. The contemporary a'capella society of america was one of the first I ran into (or realized this about). I came into contact with it through usenet (rec.music.acapella), but quickly was introduced into a local organization, and attended conventions. There was a real a'capella community that transacted much of its communications virtually. But you could -- and this is key, you very likely WOULD -- get to meet others face to face, if you reached a certain point of participation.
(One of my Math teachers saw the "scientific" community this way, too: he had one-way virtual dialogues with Newton and Euclid. And he even saw religion this way, too: one way dialogues with Isaiah, Luke, and others).
I've heard the "settlement" theory. What I keep wondering, though, is why Apple settled for that little. True they were really struggling, then, and needed Office. But I would have thought they could get a huge amount of damages. $250 million ain't it.
Well, what I'd like most is:
1) things in the unlimited price category to be in the $300-$1500 category
2) things in the $300-$1500 group to cost in the under $300 dolar group
3) things in the under $300 dollar group to be all under $20.
But I know, we're supposed to wish for objects and not events (if we didn't wish for objects then what would happen to the economy? And if we were wishing for events, we'd wish for the dismantling of the WTO, WIPO, MPAA, RIAA, and several other TLAs).
So as for objects:
A Kurzweil k2000/2500 series synth, with all the trimmings. Or something equivalent, though I doubt it exists. About $1000 used to $4000 new, these are the deepest sound-producing boxes I have ever played with -- and yet it doesn't take long to start making music with them. And music making is a pleasant break from coding.
You can also throw in a full Digidesign setup.