It's a shame there was no reference to his novel in the article - they even used the word clay to describe the technology. It seems a clear case of plagerism to me - but I guess you do not get funding for ideas you lift from novels... errr except for Space Elevators...
David Brin linked to the New Scientist version of the article.
The issue I have with this problem is that it is all so US centric.
Guess why the US lags in mobile phone use? - stupid monopolies doing stupid things and the customers having to take it as it's the only game in town - literally sometimes.
As an alternative consider Hong Kong where I live.
There are something like 6 mobile phone companies (plus virtual operators) all competing for the same 7 million people. Almost everyone buys their phones at retail with no lock-in on the carrier that they use. I have bought subsidised phones but they are always cheap and nasty - I gave them to my parents to take back to the homeland as there's no carrier lock-in.
The way all these carriers compete is on call cost and service. It is very cheap to make calls in Hong Kong, free SMS, voicemail, call forwarding. Free calls within the network for designated numbers (Girl Friend to BF for instance) - and most crucially - you pay to both make AND receive calls on your mobile phone.
You pay for the convenience of receiving calls when you're out and about. Or to make calls when you're out. But interestingly land lines do NOT pay a toll to call a mobile.
Best yet is that you can call divert your phone to a landline and no one pays to make the call to your mobile number... unless the calling party uses a mobile.
What this does is encourage people to make lots of calls on their mobile and use it for their main number as no one cares that it is a mobile number - no cost to call it. Hong Kong was first to allow number transfer between carriers resulting in a market that is hugely competitive.
So we have low call costs, lots of value added services, everyone using mobile phones for most of their calls, many people have more than one phone (work, family and mistress:) and we get fancy phones with lots of features.
It is a totally different economy for mobile phones in Hong Kong. But there is a way to change the game for the US.
So to the iPod phone... In this HK context the choice of phone comes down to what people want to buy - usually the latest and greatest fashion phone. An iPod phone would be hugely popular here. It would be another fashion phone, the coolest must have toy. And as most people get their phones from suppliers other than the carriers there is no subsidy and nothing stopping an iTunes phone for Hong Kong.
But think of it in reverse: If Apple released an iPod with phone functionality at a slight premium over a standard iPod - say like the iPod Photo is a premium iPod... then it would not need subsidy. It's an iPod not a phone.... no one buys subsidised iPods.
But what has been spoken about is a phone with limited iTunes support - so you enter the realm of carrier subsidy. Wrong way to look at it totally.
I'd buy an iPod 40GB with GSM phone like a shot. And I'd pay HKD$4000 to do so. That's around $500 USD.
I would NOT pay HKD$800 ($100 USD) for a shitty subsidised phone with iTunes that locks me into bad expensive service from one carrier.
So what does Apple want to do? Sell iPods or license iTunes to phone manufacturers? There's no option to my mind. Screw the US carriers and change the game!
Octopus cards in Hong Kong are not only used for Mass Transit ticketing but also used to take attendance at schools.
See their site here and check out the product designed for schools. Google here for more on their site.
Octopus cards each have a unique number so they can be used for security control like any electronic key. I've needed to use it to access high rise office buildings in Hong Kong... followed by another RFID card to enter the actual office.
Octopus is aptly named - it's everywhere in Hong Kong... you get used to it so you miss it when you go somewhere else and have to fumble for change on the train or have to sign in to enter a building.
As I write this on a one button iBook - I have to say that although I can't stand not having a two button mouse on my G5 I'm happy with the one button mouse on the iBook.
ctrl click is just not a big deal.
What I really miss is a scroll wheel on the iBook - but then again you never see scroll wheels on PC laptops. And I freaking hate two buttons on PC laptops. Always pressing the wrong one.
You see the iBook one button is huge - so I click it with my right thumb the same way I do the space bar. With a PC I try to click on the button and it is always the right click I hit - not the left.
Sorry - although I'm a fiend for two button scrolling mice - one button laptop buttons are the way to go. I'd have to switch the button mapping over if I had to use a PC two button laptop.
And don't get me started on 'tap to click' trackpads - what a pain.
There is a great website here - the companion to the TV series of a few years ago. The book is a great read too.
There is a very interesting section that shows the evolution of the eye in several phases and how in fact (oops I mean in theory) it is a series of simple steps each better than the previous one. There is a link to a video popup in the top left hand section of the text.
The most interesting thing about the eye is that it has evolved at least three times - or at least has evolved the complex form three times. Vertebrates, Mollusks (Squid/Scallops) and Arthropods (Lobsters, spiders, insects)
And the bit I love best is that Vertebrates have probably the worst eye of the lot - but compensate for it with an exquisite nervous system to process all the crap data. My mum got a detacted retina - yikes what a mess. Squid don't have that problem!.
Here is the start of their web page on the development of the eye - very cool...
I reckon that if the base station has the G5 CPU with the screen detachable then it would be very useful. It'd be an iMac most of the time.
Then when you move about with it the video streaming screen function kicks in. It'd have it's own cut down OS like the iPod that is optimised to run the video stream and the simple tablet interface. There could be some data storage using iPod type microdrives.
The video could be streamed using FireWire of UWB as described here.
Then imagine all the features you could add in.
Universal Remote for iTunes / Airport Express etc... eBook reader with books sold over iTunes Wacom tablet replacement Remote watching of DVDs in bed - or as a remote for the Plasma Screen also connected to the iMac base station via FireWireUWB.
The Cost = an iPod plus an iMac - and since it also acts as the screen for the iMac when docked it remains useful when it is not being used as an iTablet.
I'd buy one like a shot as it replicates my current set up in one neat package...
iBook for mobility with Wacom Tablet iMac G3 with Bluetooth adaptor for media serving DVD Player ( Only USD49.99 in Hong Kong ) and LCD monitor SonyEricsson with SallingClicker for remote
If it could be done with that functionality and at that price it'd be a sure fire winner.
In Hong Kong it seems that the ratio of people using Macs over PCs is totally out of whack with the 2.8% you hear touted around town.
Fully 50% of people I know are using Macs. The ones who aren't are still working for some corporate. Almost everyone who is out on their own is a Mac freak. It is perhaps a symptom of the fact that once you get to my age 38 you either break through into the corporate hierarchy or you are out setting up your own business.
Running a Mac based business is way easier than doing the same on a PC. Totally.
So is my experience indicative or typical enough to be relevant? However I think that people who are individualistic enough to go against the grain are more likely to reject MS and go for Mac. The Think Different moniker is probably true. To get that individualistic attitude I think you need a certain amount of confidence - and confidence comes from success.
So I think perhaps the link is success breeds confidence to think different that leads to Mac. Confidence and success comes from people who are smarter (euther in personal skills, business skills or academic skills)... so I don't have a big problem with the guess that Mac people are smarter. It is a self selected group. I think Unix users are probably smarter again.
It might be more relevant to check the following: -
The percentage of people with Macs with their own business vs those with PCs
The percentage in creative industries.
The sence of confidence and perhaps sense of being individiualistic of Mac users and PC users.
However - there is a complicating factor due to my age group...
One big reason for Mac and Apple use is that my age group did not grow up with computers. In my first year at High School (1979) we go our first computer - a TRS80. The next year our second computer was an Apple ][ and by the end of my schooling (1983) we were using lots of Apples and a lab full of BBC acorns - not a PeeSee to be seen.
So there is a certain amount of bias towards Apple just from our experience.
But I repeat - I'm continually amazed by the low Mac percentages published as it does not compare with my personal experience. If I had to make a guess PC users are in the minority amongst my friends and associates - and these are people who only have me in common with them - we're not some Mac Cabal or anything.
The Economist is not 'conservative' - that'd be the Tory version you are referring too. They most certainly are not a Tory magazine.
Nor are they left wing - in fact they are very opinionated about socialists, Social Democrats and all of that ilk. State control is anathema to them.
To describe the Economist in the traditional way you would refer to them as Liberals. The original Liberals that is.
Now in the US you refer to Michael Moore as a Liberal - WTF? Go figure - he's a socialist dude! Make that Socialist with a capital S.
Liberal in the original British meaning basically means Liberty and freedom for all people to pursue happiness and self-fulfillment. Usually this is exercised in an economic sense by way of markets, where individuals and groups of individuals agree to exchange goods and services to mutual benefit.
Liberals espouse low taxes, self help and community participation. Liberals also believe that the role of government is only to provide and enforce the legal framework to ensure this freedom.
Bush is not a Liberal in this sense - Steel Tarrifs and his intervention in markets show him up as pandering to special interests.
Moore is not a Liberal in this sense as a close reading of his works shows that he favours favours for special interests as well. Affirmative Action and State intervention and a desctruction of incentives for self help are all through his writings.... but he does provide a useful tonic. And a bit of Bush-whacking never goes unappreciated.
The Economist is Liberal in the social realm too. Years ago they had a cover story stating "Let them Wed" with a wedding cake decorated with two grooms. The Economist is pro gay marriage, pro-choice (but anti-abortion) - anti-prohibition (alcohol and drugs) and all for the decriminalisation and legalisation of the sex industry. It basically sees the choice to make these decisions as the concern of individuals - not for the state to get involved.
There is a clear parallel between this social liberalism and economic liberalism. The Economist believes that given the opportunity people will make decisions that are best for themselves, and in doing so will make decisions in the interest of everyone. We are all members of society and when individuals thrive so does society.
So in what way does this make them look like "raving Marxists" ? - especially when it views George Bush as being dangerously ready to make state interventions in the economy.
I think that the mistake you are making is assuming that social liberalism is the province of "trendy lefties" (Socialists) when in fact it is a more rational set of ideas focussed on the notion of individual freedom.
Now that is something that most Americans should be able to agree with - especially as the Economist is one of the most Pro-American publications on the planet... even if has huge doubts about Bush. It will be interesting to see who they plump for in the US Election. They've been right (as in correct) in the last few elections... Clinton x2 and Bush x1.
But I think the US view of the world of left and right will prevail - and in such a black and white world the Economist can't be described - and I admit - Liberal is too confused a meaning.
So I propose that we refer to the Economist as Pragmatic. Whatever works is good.
Well - I saw a few more interface fripperies during the demo. Did you see the ripple effect on the launch of new widgets in Dashboard.
So forget Genie - Aqua is going to get a whole lot wetter. (ummm - does that sound pr0nographic?)
The interesting thing is that with so much being handed off to the GPU there is a serious amount of power on the new G5s. When will they start bleating on about Dual CPUs Dual GPUs and double double RAM RAM on both PUs?
If you must work on proprietary OSes then don't do something that extends the Operating System itself. Widgets are a classic example. If you read Konfabulator's post about it - they do not seem totally surprised.
Software development is a Red Queen Race - you've got to stay ahead of the competition by being better faster cooler. The race that Apple is running is not against its developers but Windows. All power to them. Sure it would be nice for them to buy up innovative products like they (supposedly) did with the original multi-finder.
Not sure why they don't. It seems obvious that Windows developers half hope that MS would buy them out. But it could be argued that this would open Apple up to problems of intellectual property challenges that they couldn't afford to pay for. If you've another idea way they don't play more fair then post here.
But they do buy out good software products. Some of the Pro software has been bought from other developers.
But if you develop software too close to Apple's core business then I guess you have to look at that Sharecropper paradigm again and avoid it.
So lookout if you work on the following plots of ground...
Search (Watson) Music (Audion) Networking (Dave) Desk Accessories / OS extensions (Konfabulator) Browsers / Internet Content & Search (Camino, NewsNetWire) Video editing
I think you'd be foolish to develop a PVR for Mac OS X for instance - that covers several of the above fields... basically a Video iTunes with search and networking - perhaps that RSS stuff as well. Expect Apple to run with this for sure - that new codec H.264 should run pretty well over AirPort Express... and wait until wireless UWB Firewire hits silicon.
Still - shame on Apple - seems like they could do better. They even had the gall to present this stuff at the WWDC - where the developers would surely know where they were getting the inspiration from.... amongst the ranks of those in the audience. Hell the Konfabulator guys, Arlo Rose & Perry Clarke, were probably in the audience!
... one of the reason the Imperial system is moderately convenient for building is that base 12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, so you'll encounter less rounding error if you need to split things up into common numbers
I'm an architest and I can tell you that the Imperial system sucks big time and is not convenient at all.
Adding up Imperial measurements is a freaking nightmare.
In the rest of the world we use standard sizes for construction materials like 150x150mm wall tiles, 300x300 floor tiles, 600x600 raised floor tiles, 900x900 carpet tiles, 1200x2400 (or higher) gypsum wall panels.... get it - it's all on a sensible module that you can use to line everything up on.... AND it doesn't stop you from use the exact same convenient divisor of base 12. In fact the above building material sizes show this exactly.
And you can easily add them all up.
The other thing that no one has mentioned is scale and the A system.
The majority of drawings we make are A1 sizes - which nicely scales to A3. A 1:50 drawing at A1 becomes a 1:100 scale at A3 - not the freaking ridiculous Imperial scales.
Then you can get a ruler with a 1cm scale on it and every cm is a metre.
Note that if you scale a A3 to A4 then everything becomes an inconvenient scale. What happens is that you reduce A3 to A4 for a Fax transmission the receiver scales it back up to A3 to use.
Note that the same issue occurs with A1 to A2 or A2 to A3. You need to scale down two levels in the A system to maintain scale - which is fine for most uses.
So the Imperial system sucks in all ways for Architects and construction in general.
Re:Pretty hilarious... other stories by Evans
on
BBC Links Linux To MyDoom
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think this guy is talking through a hole in his head - he doesn't follow the Linux or Spam industries at all. He is not competent to make a statement.
They are mainly about Globalisation, and misconceptions about it... sort of funny really given his own mistaken view of who might have carried out the MyDoom attacks and why.
However the same guy won an award for writing about 911...
But Evans is not an expert on the motivation of Linux programmers. I'm no conspiracy freak - and don't quite buy the idea that SCO brought it on themselves. However - it is more likely the work of spammers wishing to deflect attention from themselves. The fact that Mr Evans doesn't quite understand the link between spam, worms and virii means that his comments should be ignorred.
The only trouble is that similarly ignorant people will not. I think the focus of our concern should be the wider misunderstanding in the media.
We so often make it difficult for the media to understand the issues. The media needs to be educated enough to be able to avoid such misinformation in the future.
The parent post doesn't know what he's talking about. I've lived in Hong Kong since 1993 and number portability has seen an improvement in service, quality and lower prices. I've changed from one2free to Smartone to Orange to get better pricing and services. My girlfriend is on Orange too and we get 1000 free minutes each month for calling to each other.
On another note - something else the US should emulate...
In HK every time you use a mobile you pay for your minutes, making AND receiving a call. It is great!
Each per minute charge is about half the price I've seen overseas, but total cost ends up about the same. Calls from landlines are made for free, but I pay to receive them as I'm using my mobile phone. This means that essentially I pay for my availability: People don't pay to call me so I can use this as my only phone as there is no cost to them - unless they use their own mobile phone.
I'm frustrated when in overseas countries and using a local mobile phone, no one will call me due to their needing to pay for the privilege. I was amazed at people's reluctance to pay the cost! I'm more than happy to pay for it - I want to be phoned - why should others pay for my convenience?!!! Dumb dumb dumb.
So if the desire is to increase phone use (as well as ownership), decrease cost, increase services then both things need to change.
Portability and a change in time charge.
Airtime charge for both sending and receiving with free calls from landlines to mobiles should also be introduced.
I had the same problem - I solved it by using the names of all the girlfriends I ever had followed by the year...
Trouble was I ran out and was not about to dump my current one.... so I started on the cats. Just glad my girlfriend never knew the system I used... how to explain bimbo89...?
Alan Gibbs is a New Zealander - the jet boat is a New Zealand innovation - he is just using British money.... so this thread should be "Only the Kiwis!" - and I'd a gree with that - if ever there were a pack of wishful thinkers it's New Zealanders....
Sorry - I can't link to a Flash page - where's the HTML version?
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Informative
in fact Argentina put Skyhawks up against the Sea Harriers in the Falklands war and they're not supersonic.
They did field four Super Etendard Fighters which are supersonic - but not against the Sea Harriers. The Sea Harriers were lost mainly through accidents, SAMs and small arms fire! British Aircraft Lost.
Here's a breakdown of Argentine Aircraft Lost - you'll see they were shot down mainly by missiles - some from ships others by Sea Harriers. The Sea Harrier can thus be seen as a platform for missiles - and can not really be lauded as a performance aircraft - though the VTOL ability is amazing.
I'm no war or fighter nut - these links above were found on Google over a 10 minute period - it's called research - something I don't think you actually did:) No hard feelings just do a Google and show us the links if you feel strongly enough about your position.
Totally right - one of the more insightful comments on this topic.
I'd like to add that what is really happening when people get richer is that their productivity increases so that the value of their work is more than $2 a day.
This is what the modern world is all about. The industrial revolution was really more about the indutrialisation of agriculture so that instead of being dependent upon physical labour for agricultural productivity a single farmer could produce more than enough food to feed hundreds of people.
Making those agricultural workers unemployed meant they had to find more work, in the factories then spreading. Now perhaps you might perfer a life digging ditches - but most preferred the factory life. Britain became the richest place in history.
Succeeding waves of improving productivity means that people produce more and are thus more valuable. Ironically the unemployment that is the transient result of productivity increases is ultimately a good thing in a flexible economy. People are more valuable than machines and it is a waste of resources for people to be doing work if there is a machine to do it instead. People are more valuable than machines!!!
So in a world where robots do the menial jobs I'm sure that there will always be jobs for people. Just as the writer of the article uses the analogy of flight to describe how we can not have foreseen the changes in technology, even less could some in 1900 have predicted whole industries such as SCUBA diving instructors, mass tourism, the personal training industry, computer game designers, help me here - there are a lot.
We might see a revival in handmade objects that replace mass produced items, everything might be custom made by artisans. It is impossible to forsee, except to say that we have experienced waves of productivity increases in the past and everyone has recovered - given enough flexibility in the economy and the education sector.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Iain M. Banks' Culture universe. There everything is made by AIs - except those things that only the creativity of individuals can produce. Freeing up people to do things in a unique and valuable manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, David Brin even mentioned this in his Blog.
8 625031.800
davidbrin.blogspot.com
It's a shame there was no reference to his novel in the article - they even used the word clay to describe the technology. It seems a clear case of plagerism to me - but I guess you do not get funding for ideas you lift from novels... errr except for Space Elevators...
David Brin linked to the New Scientist version of the article.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg1
The issue I have with this problem is that it is all so US centric.
:) and we get fancy phones with lots of features.
Guess why the US lags in mobile phone use? - stupid monopolies doing stupid things and the customers having to take it as it's the only game in town - literally sometimes.
As an alternative consider Hong Kong where I live.
There are something like 6 mobile phone companies (plus virtual operators) all competing for the same 7 million people. Almost everyone buys their phones at retail with no lock-in on the carrier that they use. I have bought subsidised phones but they are always cheap and nasty - I gave them to my parents to take back to the homeland as there's no carrier lock-in.
The way all these carriers compete is on call cost and service. It is very cheap to make calls in Hong Kong, free SMS, voicemail, call forwarding. Free calls within the network for designated numbers (Girl Friend to BF for instance) - and most crucially - you pay to both make AND receive calls on your mobile phone.
You pay for the convenience of receiving calls when you're out and about. Or to make calls when you're out. But interestingly land lines do NOT pay a toll to call a mobile.
Best yet is that you can call divert your phone to a landline and no one pays to make the call to your mobile number... unless the calling party uses a mobile.
What this does is encourage people to make lots of calls on their mobile and use it for their main number as no one cares that it is a mobile number - no cost to call it. Hong Kong was first to allow number transfer between carriers resulting in a market that is hugely competitive.
So we have low call costs, lots of value added services, everyone using mobile phones for most of their calls, many people have more than one phone (work, family and mistress
It is a totally different economy for mobile phones in Hong Kong. But there is a way to change the game for the US.
So to the iPod phone... In this HK context the choice of phone comes down to what people want to buy - usually the latest and greatest fashion phone. An iPod phone would be hugely popular here. It would be another fashion phone, the coolest must have toy. And as most people get their phones from suppliers other than the carriers there is no subsidy and nothing stopping an iTunes phone for Hong Kong.
But think of it in reverse: If Apple released an iPod with phone functionality at a slight premium over a standard iPod - say like the iPod Photo is a premium iPod... then it would not need subsidy. It's an iPod not a phone.... no one buys subsidised iPods.
But what has been spoken about is a phone with limited iTunes support - so you enter the realm of carrier subsidy. Wrong way to look at it totally.
I'd buy an iPod 40GB with GSM phone like a shot. And I'd pay HKD$4000 to do so. That's around $500 USD.
I would NOT pay HKD$800 ($100 USD) for a shitty subsidised phone with iTunes that locks me into bad expensive service from one carrier.
So what does Apple want to do? Sell iPods or license iTunes to phone manufacturers? There's no option to my mind. Screw the US carriers and change the game!
NPR show on EV1.
While you're at it subscribe to the All Things Considered RSS feed... http://www.npr.org/rss/rss.php?prgCode=ATC
Octopus cards in Hong Kong are not only used for Mass Transit ticketing but also used to take attendance at schools.
See their site here and check out the product designed for schools. Google here for more on their site.
Octopus cards each have a unique number so they can be used for security control like any electronic key. I've needed to use it to access high rise office buildings in Hong Kong... followed by another RFID card to enter the actual office.
Octopus is aptly named - it's everywhere in Hong Kong... you get used to it so you miss it when you go somewhere else and have to fumble for change on the train or have to sign in to enter a building.
As I write this on a one button iBook - I have to say that although I can't stand not having a two button mouse on my G5 I'm happy with the one button mouse on the iBook.
ctrl click is just not a big deal.
What I really miss is a scroll wheel on the iBook - but then again you never see scroll wheels on PC laptops. And I freaking hate two buttons on PC laptops. Always pressing the wrong one.
You see the iBook one button is huge - so I click it with my right thumb the same way I do the space bar. With a PC I try to click on the button and it is always the right click I hit - not the left.
Sorry - although I'm a fiend for two button scrolling mice - one button laptop buttons are the way to go. I'd have to switch the button mapping over if I had to use a PC two button laptop.
And don't get me started on 'tap to click' trackpads - what a pain.
Yeah - plug in a USB three button scroll wheel mouse and it just works.
Just because they ship with their one button mouse does not mean that they've hamstrung the whole system.
I use an iOpti Junior from Macally - but there are a ton of standard USB mouses you can use - OS 9 and OS X too.
And Bare Bones Software has a free version of BBEdit called Text Wrangler too...
i nd ex.shtml
http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/
There is a great website here - the companion to the TV series of a few years ago. The book is a great read too.
g e03.html
d ex.html
There is a very interesting section that shows the evolution of the eye in several phases and how in fact (oops I mean in theory) it is a series of simple steps each better than the previous one. There is a link to a video popup in the top left hand section of the text.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/pa
The most interesting thing about the eye is that it has evolved at least three times - or at least has evolved the complex form three times. Vertebrates, Mollusks (Squid/Scallops) and Arthropods (Lobsters, spiders, insects)
And the bit I love best is that Vertebrates have probably the worst eye of the lot - but compensate for it with an exquisite nervous system to process all the crap data. My mum got a detacted retina - yikes what a mess. Squid don't have that problem!.
Here is the start of their web page on the development of the eye - very cool...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/in
Better stil to do it to a cache without the images linked from the site you're trying to avoid Slashdotting...
Text Only Google Cache
Yeah - and I would have thought that ZigBee would be a more appropriate wireless protocol to use as well.
Seansy is right.
I reckon that if the base station has the G5 CPU with the screen detachable then it would be very useful. It'd be an iMac most of the time.
Then when you move about with it the video streaming screen function kicks in. It'd have it's own cut down OS like the iPod that is optimised to run the video stream and the simple tablet interface. There could be some data storage using iPod type microdrives.
The video could be streamed using FireWire of UWB as described here.
Then imagine all the features you could add in.
Universal Remote for iTunes / Airport Express etc...
eBook reader with books sold over iTunes
Wacom tablet replacement
Remote watching of DVDs in bed - or as a remote for the Plasma Screen also connected to the iMac base station via FireWireUWB.
The Cost = an iPod plus an iMac - and since it also acts as the screen for the iMac when docked it remains useful when it is not being used as an iTablet.
I'd buy one like a shot as it replicates my current set up in one neat package...
iBook for mobility with Wacom Tablet
iMac G3 with Bluetooth adaptor for media serving
DVD Player ( Only USD49.99 in Hong Kong ) and LCD monitor
SonyEricsson with SallingClicker for remote
If it could be done with that functionality and at that price it'd be a sure fire winner.
In Hong Kong it seems that the ratio of people using Macs over PCs is totally out of whack with the 2.8% you hear touted around town.
... so I don't have a big problem with the guess that Mac people are smarter. It is a self selected group. I think Unix users are probably smarter again.
Fully 50% of people I know are using Macs. The ones who aren't are still working for some corporate. Almost everyone who is out on their own is a Mac freak. It is perhaps a symptom of the fact that once you get to my age 38 you either break through into the corporate hierarchy or you are out setting up your own business.
Running a Mac based business is way easier than doing the same on a PC. Totally.
So is my experience indicative or typical enough to be relevant? However I think that people who are individualistic enough to go against the grain are more likely to reject MS and go for Mac. The Think Different moniker is probably true. To get that individualistic attitude I think you need a certain amount of confidence - and confidence comes from success.
So I think perhaps the link is success breeds confidence to think different that leads to Mac. Confidence and success comes from people who are smarter (euther in personal skills, business skills or academic skills)
It might be more relevant to check the following: -
The percentage of people with Macs with their own business vs those with PCs
The percentage in creative industries.
The sence of confidence and perhaps sense of being individiualistic of Mac users and PC users.
However - there is a complicating factor due to my age group...
One big reason for Mac and Apple use is that my age group did not grow up with computers. In my first year at High School (1979) we go our first computer - a TRS80. The next year our second computer was an Apple ][ and by the end of my schooling (1983) we were using lots of Apples and a lab full of BBC acorns - not a PeeSee to be seen.
So there is a certain amount of bias towards Apple just from our experience.
But I repeat - I'm continually amazed by the low Mac percentages published as it does not compare with my personal experience. If I had to make a guess PC users are in the minority amongst my friends and associates - and these are people who only have me in common with them - we're not some Mac Cabal or anything.
In fact you are wrong.
The Economist is not 'conservative' - that'd be the Tory version you are referring too. They most certainly are not a Tory magazine.
Nor are they left wing - in fact they are very opinionated about socialists, Social Democrats and all of that ilk. State control is anathema to them.
To describe the Economist in the traditional way you would refer to them as Liberals. The original Liberals that is.
Now in the US you refer to Michael Moore as a Liberal - WTF? Go figure - he's a socialist dude! Make that Socialist with a capital S.
Liberal in the original British meaning basically means Liberty and freedom for all people to pursue happiness and self-fulfillment. Usually this is exercised in an economic sense by way of markets, where individuals and groups of individuals agree to exchange goods and services to mutual benefit.
Liberals espouse low taxes, self help and community participation. Liberals also believe that the role of government is only to provide and enforce the legal framework to ensure this freedom.
Bush is not a Liberal in this sense - Steel Tarrifs and his intervention in markets show him up as pandering to special interests.
Moore is not a Liberal in this sense as a close reading of his works shows that he favours favours for special interests as well. Affirmative Action and State intervention and a desctruction of incentives for self help are all through his writings.... but he does provide a useful tonic. And a bit of Bush-whacking never goes unappreciated.
The Economist is Liberal in the social realm too. Years ago they had a cover story stating "Let them Wed" with a wedding cake decorated with two grooms. The Economist is pro gay marriage, pro-choice (but anti-abortion) - anti-prohibition (alcohol and drugs) and all for the decriminalisation and legalisation of the sex industry. It basically sees the choice to make these decisions as the concern of individuals - not for the state to get involved.
There is a clear parallel between this social liberalism and economic liberalism. The Economist believes that given the opportunity people will make decisions that are best for themselves, and in doing so will make decisions in the interest of everyone. We are all members of society and when individuals thrive so does society.
So in what way does this make them look like "raving Marxists" ? - especially when it views George Bush as being dangerously ready to make state interventions in the economy.
I think that the mistake you are making is assuming that social liberalism is the province of "trendy lefties" (Socialists) when in fact it is a more rational set of ideas focussed on the notion of individual freedom.
Now that is something that most Americans should be able to agree with - especially as the Economist is one of the most Pro-American publications on the planet... even if has huge doubts about Bush. It will be interesting to see who they plump for in the US Election. They've been right (as in correct) in the last few elections... Clinton x2 and Bush x1.
But I think the US view of the world of left and right will prevail - and in such a black and white world the Economist can't be described - and I admit - Liberal is too confused a meaning.
So I propose that we refer to the Economist as Pragmatic. Whatever works is good.
Well - I saw a few more interface fripperies during the demo. Did you see the ripple effect on the launch of new widgets in Dashboard.
So forget Genie - Aqua is going to get a whole lot wetter. (ummm - does that sound pr0nographic?)
The interesting thing is that with so much being handed off to the GPU there is a serious amount of power on the new G5s. When will they start bleating on about Dual CPUs Dual GPUs and double double RAM RAM on both PUs?
It's been said before don't be a sharecropper.
If you must work on proprietary OSes then don't do something that extends the Operating System itself. Widgets are a classic example. If you read Konfabulator's post about it - they do not seem totally surprised.
Software development is a Red Queen Race - you've got to stay ahead of the competition by being better faster cooler. The race that Apple is running is not against its developers but Windows. All power to them. Sure it would be nice for them to buy up innovative products like they (supposedly) did with the original multi-finder.
Not sure why they don't. It seems obvious that Windows developers half hope that MS would buy them out. But it could be argued that this would open Apple up to problems of intellectual property challenges that they couldn't afford to pay for. If you've another idea way they don't play more fair then post here.
But they do buy out good software products. Some of the Pro software has been bought from other developers.
But if you develop software too close to Apple's core business then I guess you have to look at that Sharecropper paradigm again and avoid it.
So lookout if you work on the following plots of ground...
Search (Watson)
Music (Audion)
Networking (Dave)
Desk Accessories / OS extensions (Konfabulator)
Browsers / Internet Content & Search (Camino, NewsNetWire)
Video editing
I think you'd be foolish to develop a PVR for Mac OS X for instance - that covers several of the above fields... basically a Video iTunes with search and networking - perhaps that RSS stuff as well. Expect Apple to run with this for sure - that new codec H.264 should run pretty well over AirPort Express... and wait until wireless UWB Firewire hits silicon.
Still - shame on Apple - seems like they could do better. They even had the gall to present this stuff at the WWDC - where the developers would surely know where they were getting the inspiration from.... amongst the ranks of those in the audience. Hell the Konfabulator guys, Arlo Rose & Perry Clarke, were probably in the audience!
... one of the reason the Imperial system is moderately convenient for building is that base 12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, so you'll encounter less rounding error if you need to split things up into common numbers
.... AND it doesn't stop you from use the exact same convenient divisor of base 12. In fact the above building material sizes show this exactly.
I'm an architest and I can tell you that the Imperial system sucks big time and is not convenient at all.
Adding up Imperial measurements is a freaking nightmare.
In the rest of the world we use standard sizes for construction materials like 150x150mm wall tiles, 300x300 floor tiles, 600x600 raised floor tiles, 900x900 carpet tiles, 1200x2400 (or higher) gypsum wall panels.... get it - it's all on a sensible module that you can use to line everything up on
And you can easily add them all up.
The other thing that no one has mentioned is scale and the A system.
The majority of drawings we make are A1 sizes - which nicely scales to A3. A 1:50 drawing at A1 becomes a 1:100 scale at A3 - not the freaking ridiculous Imperial scales.
Then you can get a ruler with a 1cm scale on it and every cm is a metre.
Note that if you scale a A3 to A4 then everything becomes an inconvenient scale. What happens is that you reduce A3 to A4 for a Fax transmission the receiver scales it back up to A3 to use.
Note that the same issue occurs with A1 to A2 or A2 to A3. You need to scale down two levels in the A system to maintain scale - which is fine for most uses.
So the Imperial system sucks in all ways for Architects and construction in general.
Excellent....
s tm
There is also this 'Have Your Say Form' : -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2804227.
I think this guy is talking through a hole in his head - he doesn't follow the Linux or Spam industries at all. He is not competent to make a statement.
Here are some links to his other stories....
Here
They are mainly about Globalisation, and misconceptions about it... sort of funny really given his own mistaken view of who might have carried out the MyDoom attacks and why.
However the same guy won an award for writing about 911...
Reporting on 911
But Evans is not an expert on the motivation of Linux programmers. I'm no conspiracy freak - and don't quite buy the idea that SCO brought it on themselves. However - it is more likely the work of spammers wishing to deflect attention from themselves. The fact that Mr Evans doesn't quite understand the link between spam, worms and virii means that his comments should be ignorred.
The only trouble is that similarly ignorant people will not. I think the focus of our concern should be the wider misunderstanding in the media.
We so often make it difficult for the media to understand the issues. The media needs to be educated enough to be able to avoid such misinformation in the future.
Not an easy task...
The parent post doesn't know what he's talking about. I've lived in Hong Kong since 1993 and number portability has seen an improvement in service, quality and lower prices. I've changed from one2free to Smartone to Orange to get better pricing and services. My girlfriend is on Orange too and we get 1000 free minutes each month for calling to each other.
On another note - something else the US should emulate...
In HK every time you use a mobile you pay for your minutes, making AND receiving a call. It is great!
Each per minute charge is about half the price I've seen overseas, but total cost ends up about the same. Calls from landlines are made for free, but I pay to receive them as I'm using my mobile phone. This means that essentially I pay for my availability: People don't pay to call me so I can use this as my only phone as there is no cost to them - unless they use their own mobile phone.
I'm frustrated when in overseas countries and using a local mobile phone, no one will call me due to their needing to pay for the privilege. I was amazed at people's reluctance to pay the cost! I'm more than happy to pay for it - I want to be phoned - why should others pay for my convenience?!!! Dumb dumb dumb.
So if the desire is to increase phone use (as well as ownership), decrease cost, increase services then both things need to change.
Portability and a change in time charge.
Airtime charge for both sending and receiving with free calls from landlines to mobiles should also be introduced.
I had the same problem - I solved it by using the names of all the girlfriends I ever had followed by the year...
...?
.... really!"
Trouble was I ran out and was not about to dump my current one.... so I started on the cats. Just glad my girlfriend never knew the system I used... how to explain bimbo89
"No no that's my cat
Alan Gibbs is a New Zealander - the jet boat is a New Zealand innovation - he is just using British money.... so this thread should be "Only the Kiwis!" - and I'd a gree with that - if ever there were a pack of wishful thinkers it's New Zealanders....
Sorry - I can't link to a Flash page - where's the HTML version?
in fact Argentina put Skyhawks up against the Sea Harriers in the Falklands war and they're not supersonic.
:) No hard feelings just do a Google and show us the links if you feel strongly enough about your position.
Here are the Skyhawk Tech Specs - top speed 675 mph - and to jog you memory the Speed of Sound is 761 mph (1,223 km/h).
Here is a link to Skyhawks in Argentina and in the Argentine Forces during the Falklands war.
They did field four Super Etendard Fighters which are supersonic - but not against the Sea Harriers. The Sea Harriers were lost mainly through accidents, SAMs and small arms fire! British Aircraft Lost.
Here's a breakdown of Argentine Aircraft Lost - you'll see they were shot down mainly by missiles - some from ships others by Sea Harriers. The Sea Harrier can thus be seen as a platform for missiles - and can not really be lauded as a performance aircraft - though the VTOL ability is amazing.
I'm no war or fighter nut - these links above were found on Google over a 10 minute period - it's called research - something I don't think you actually did
Just the facts Man!
Totally right - one of the more insightful comments on this topic.
I'd like to add that what is really happening when people get richer is that their productivity increases so that the value of their work is more than $2 a day.
This is what the modern world is all about. The industrial revolution was really more about the indutrialisation of agriculture so that instead of being dependent upon physical labour for agricultural productivity a single farmer could produce more than enough food to feed hundreds of people.
Making those agricultural workers unemployed meant they had to find more work, in the factories then spreading. Now perhaps you might perfer a life digging ditches - but most preferred the factory life. Britain became the richest place in history.
Succeeding waves of improving productivity means that people produce more and are thus more valuable. Ironically the unemployment that is the transient result of productivity increases is ultimately a good thing in a flexible economy. People are more valuable than machines and it is a waste of resources for people to be doing work if there is a machine to do it instead. People are more valuable than machines!!!
So in a world where robots do the menial jobs I'm sure that there will always be jobs for people. Just as the writer of the article uses the analogy of flight to describe how we can not have foreseen the changes in technology, even less could some in 1900 have predicted whole industries such as SCUBA diving instructors, mass tourism, the personal training industry, computer game designers, help me here - there are a lot.
We might see a revival in handmade objects that replace mass produced items, everything might be custom made by artisans. It is impossible to forsee, except to say that we have experienced waves of productivity increases in the past and everyone has recovered - given enough flexibility in the economy and the education sector.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Iain M. Banks' Culture universe. There everything is made by AIs - except those things that only the creativity of individuals can produce. Freeing up people to do things in a unique and valuable manner.
Bring on the day.
Spell check - Must remember to spell check...
Sigh....
t p://www.nwpamed.com/Phoenix/birdhx.htm
... well let's just not go there....
Egyptian - it's an Egyption legend....
http://cindyart.com/Pages/PhoenixEgypt.html
ht
I'm never very sure whether these sorts of comments are meant to be funny or if it is the famous ignorance of