I'm an F1 fan and I'm sorry but that's not correct.
F1 runs on standard pump unleaded. They used to run on all sorts of exotic things - toluene, mostly, IIRC - but they changed the rules a few years back. Now it's basically the same as what your car runs on.
Champ Cars - the US domestic series - run on Methanol. The cars look reasonably similar to a non-fan:)
Also, F1's only had refuelling since '94 or so. They DID have a spectacular pit fire in '94 at Hockenheim (Germany), though - Benetton had removed a filter to try and speed refuelling slightly but gravel got caught in the valve and it jammed open, spraying fuel everywhere. And, being petrol, the fire was visible.
There's been two other fires, since - Pedro Diniz for Ligier had a leaky valve and the car went up on the track, while Jordaon (IIRC) had a fire in the pits at Spa Francorchamps (Belgium) though I can't remember the cause or driver, sorry.
There is an instruction set to any processor, or it doesn't work. By defintion.
The point is that, with something like a P-II or a Crusoe (from what I can see right now) the instruction set really isn't very relevant. It's not accessible and it probably wouldn't even be especially easy to use if you could. The simple idea of this is that they can make this core full of micro-ops run faster after translation than they can get the standard core, so they do it that way.
I agree that it would appear that they've replaced the static translation firmware with dynamic, reprogrammable software. It definitely has an instruction set - and this could get even more interesting if that's accessible - but the whole point of this is that the translation is blindingly fast.
The main modification I'd make, though, would be to make Karma degrade over time. I'm on 30ish right now (which is nothing spectacular in the grand scheme of things) so it'd take quite a bit of trolling for me to lose my +1 bonus. That isn't right.
The point is, people change. Why should I be rewarded in two years time for making good posts - in the opinions of some moderators:) - now if I haven't been moderated up once in the interim?
It'd also be interesting to see auto +1's appearing in meta moderation to se if we could lost Karma that way...
>>But what are their internet appliances or Palms if not computers?
Well, I assumed that would go without saying... that's why I put computer in quotes. Computer System as what we define them as today - a case, monitor, keyboard, etc. Computers of tomorrow will be less obvious. Perhaps a Digital Flat Screen hanging on a wall that people "talk" to. I think the success of the iMac is a testament of what I'm stating. People aren't as intimidated by it. It looks cool, fun with great colors, and easy to use.
It appears we may agree after all:)
Computers are fundamentally useful things that aren't going to be replaced (IMO) by simple Internet terminals. But I'd agree that the iMac is a lot closer to the likely future model of computers than the PC I'm typing on right now. It just makes more sense for 99% of users.
People also like gadgets like cell phones and PDAs like your Palm Pilot. But they don't pick them up and say hey, I'm gonna make a call on my portable voice relay computer or surf the web on my wireless Internet integrated computing device. I would have to be totally ignorant or just plain stupid to suggest that the future will have no PCs. Information just isn't processed in some magical box. Come on man... gimme a little credit.
My apologies for misunderstanding you - it appeared that you were suggesting that Internet terminals and mobile phones would be all most would use - something I'd wholeheartedly disagree with. Thanks for clearing that one up.
My assertion is that computers are already in the mainstream and are on their way out so to speak. Exactly... less visible, less obvious. Again, of course, they are not going to disappear. They will just be integrated into many many products. The word computer frightens most people in terms of utilizing one but not as a discussion at cocktail parties. That's why there will be a new buzzword for the future to refer to them as. Perhaps you will walk into a mall and there will be standing a robot like on the movie Bicentenial Man and it will help you find something instead of the little directories they put out front. It will not be referred to as a computer even though it obviously is.
Actually, I think that's already happening in many ways.
The thing is, computers have (traditionally) made a virtue of being obviously computers - both in their physical presence and their interface. That might sound odd, but think about it. They've very deliberately gone their own way in terms of interfaces. With good reason as a niche product as the interface is more efficient once you know how to use it, but not so good for a novice user - indeed, potentially intimidating.
Most of the more modern devices seem to be doing their level best to hide what they are. Take your mall information system, for example. That sort of thing exists quite often over here, but almost always in the form of a touchscreen map and index. The idea being to make the interface as close as possible to what they're already used to.
Now, UK readers, think of teletext or the Sky Digital program guide. Neither's an especialy efficient interface but both are simple (basically menu systems) and easy to pick up.
The main thing people are trying to work around here is fear. Fear of computers. So many of these devices are moving towards simpler, less efficient interfaces in the quest for easy of learning.
But do I see this as a long-term thing? No. The whole reason for doing this is to get people using computers who wouldn't today because they regard them as nasty, scary boxes that commit suicide the instant they touch them. But who tends to hold this attitude? Adults, especially those who haven't grown up with computers.
For those of you who haven't read my webpage - most of you I'm guessing:) - I'm a 20 year old CS undergraduate, living in halls. I get asked to help with friends' computers relatively frequently. Often trivial little things that you or I would take for granted, but to them they're not so easy.
But how many of them are scared of their computer and would benefit from an AOL-style interface? Well, I haven't noticed any yet. We're talking here about a group who've grown up with computers just another fact of life and use them relatively intuitively. They might not find the little details that make computing easier, but they can do the basics. And they don't need an AOL.
Now, let's look the previously stated 20 years down the road. Accidents an illness excepted, I'll be 40. And most people (in this country, as I said earlier) younger than me will have grown up with computers an everyday fact of life. Some of the older generations will have taught themselves, too.
There's always going to be a place for the AOL-style interfaces in the appliances where the fact that it's a computer is irrelevant - mall guides, that web connected fridge, stuff like that. But in the rest of the world? Unlikely. PCs and their interfaces won't be in their current form, but they're not going to look much like AOL either.
Well, I don't recall stating that all people did with computers is surf the net.
My apologies. That was how I read your original post (I'm assuming we're talking the same anonymous poster here!) but if that wasn't what you meant, sorry.
The items you have listed here are only scratching the surface of what will be available for people to do with their devices in the future. More buzzwords: client/server, distributed computing, NetPCs, Thin-client, XML, etc. I believe in the near future that people will be able to use their Internet Appliances (or whatever you would like to call them) even more so for things other than standard surfing. Say for instance, a wordprocessor or spreadsheet, etc., etc. delivered through your web browser interface or whatever it may be called in the future. I believe with Lotus Notes you can do something similiar to this now.
I can see that, but I can't imagine it happening in all that huge numbers, TBH.
This comes down to the issue of trust in many ways. I accept that the average slashdot poster is probably a little more paranoid than the average Internet user, but people still think about this sort of thing. And do you want your personal files all stored on your ISP's computer but nowhere else? Your bank records? Job applications? Personal projects?
Also, what happens if the network dies? Doesn't happen all that often, I'll agree, but it happens every now and then. Do you want your computer to become a useless box then?
Simple economics dictates that this will happen to some degree or another as it's potentially cheaper. But I can't see the amrket penetration being that high.
And games??? Sega Dreamcast and who knows what will be available in the future. This is just another example of a device. When people pick one of those up off the shelf they don't call it a computer-emulating gaming device. Yet, you can play games... supposedly get on the Internet in the near future. And if they did it right - word processing thru a browser, etc... it's limitless.
Potentially, yes. Potentially, this sort of thing is very useful indeed. But is it going to take over? To some degree, inevitably. But majority access method, no. I can't see that.
I agree with the rest of your comments and also know it as fact. I wasn't suggesting any such things... only what I have stated so I won't bother to comment on the rest. I think you just misunderstood what I was saying in reference to a typical end-users definition of a computer in the future. They won't necessarily "recognize" it as one but, of course, it indeed will be.
Yes, there was definitely an element of crossed wires between us. But I'm still not quite sure we're agreeing here...
Y'see, while I see what you say, I can't believe that computers are going to become that invisible. They're going to become rather different, certainly, but I can't see it going as far as you seem to suggest.
Incidentally, if I was Mr Ballmer...
Ramp up Windows CE. It's a far more sensible long-term bet than 2000. Leave that for us enthusiasts / geeks, but CE makes more sense for the average user. Just give it disk drive support and you've got something potentially much nicer.
I've already seen a 20 year period in computer history go by. And people generally know less of how to effectively utilize their computers now than they did back then thanks to GUIs like Windows -- just point and click right? And I'm saying people will "interface" with "computers" differently in the future and won't have to even know what one is -- just be able to speak (voice-recognition, etc.):)
My age unfortunately stops my having that much experience, but I'm not far off.
Seriously, I never remeber not having some form of computer around the house. We had a Sinclair ZX81, then a Spectrum. We got an Amiga in '93, a Windows box in '96. I got a Palm last year:) Yes, it's interesting to see how computers have moved on. No, I don't think that we're going to have interfaces all that close to what we have now in 20 years time. But I can't see it going that far. Not entirely. Useful for some things - sure. But it's just not sensible to do word processing (for example) via such an interface unless you absolutely have to.
Anyway, it's been interesting comparing visions here:) If anyone else likes this sort of thing, quite a bit of this goes on over at KOSH, mostly on the mailinglists. Feel free to join us!
But, in this business model, the pie is the recipe. There's no practical value in anything other than the source.
Hence the analogy holds. Free software is fine and I applaud people for giving away their source, but to then demand others follow up your act isn't right.
Nor, for that matter, is to demand that their revisions to your software should be licensed under the same license you chose. That's a restriction on freedom of use, too...
Software is not a manufacturing industry, no matter how hard they try to make people believe it.
Software may not be a manufacturing industry (I'm not comitting either way on that one) but it's certainly an R&D industry.
The point is, while the direct unit cost of any software product may well be insignificant compared to its price, its sale would not be possible without substantial development overheads. The fact that they do not alter substantially depending on the number of sales does not mean that their cost should be disregarded.
Your problem here is an over-simplistic view of economics coupled to idealism. While I'm glad to see idealists, it's a pity you're letting it cloud your judgment here.
My recollection of a friend at Southampton's e-mail address suggests you're a Computer Science Student. I am too.
I fully understand that view, I've seen it argued here many a time. But I'm yet to see any coherent explanation for why our labours and use of skills as software engineers should automatically be donated to the community for free to do with as they wish while I am free to sell the results of my labours as a musician.
Software development is a skill which takes a considerable amount of time and skill for most to develop to any standard. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't code, doesn't code well or is absurdly talented. Now, there is a demand for this skill. So why should I not be able to sell my code? Because, whatever some may say, selling GPL'd code simply isn't practical.
The second biggest reason is that Be is Free Software parasite. I have spent a little time browsing BeOS advocacy sites, they all want this or that application open sourced so that they can port it to BeOS. Does anyone else see the hypocracy in this? If it wasn't for Free Software, BeOS wouldn't have a decent compiler.
Apologies to the slashdot poster who I'm parapshrasing here as I forgot to note the details down, but...
If you give me some apples but then demand a share of any pies I make, you're not really sharing.
Your attitude is quite common but nonetheless reprehensible. If you think your software should be free, all power to you and you have my congratulations. But that doesn't then give you the right to demand the same of others.
Free shouldn't mean "I'll share mine if you'll share yours" as that's a restriction itself.
You didn't read the original post very thoroughly, did you?
I'll quote: Linux does not need open source to be used. How many users actually use the source. It aided its development and growth, but not its usage.
No one is debating that Linux's development has been aided hugely by its open nature. But how many people using Linux today are doing so because they can get at the source? Some, sure, but not that many. Not that many have the education to understand the source (before I get flamed, I'm not being an elitist CS student - I couldn't understand the source) in the first place, so it's irrelevant.
Development has been aided, sure. Development has added to features and performance which have attracted users, sure. But users have been directly attracted due to the open nature? No, not in any great quantity. Believe what you like but to say anything else is to stick your head in the sand.
One thing I've noticed in this debate, though - one specific legal system is being assumed. Specifically, the US legal system.
Folks, slashdot is NOT an American-only site and there is a world out there with different laws. While I accept that most of the posters are American due to simple net demographics, I am not:)
The GPL may well stand up in an American court, or it may not. I really don't know and I'm not a lawyer - though the libraries argument seemed pretty persuasive to me. But what would happen if (hypothetically) I decided that I was determined to violate the GPL out of simple nastiness. I'm in the UK right now - could I do so legally? Or, say, in other member states of the EU (as I have basic freedom of movement within the EU) or the G8?
It's all well and good debating whether it stands up under US law, but when we're distributing these things across the world is it very relevant if you could hop over the border to Canada or Mexico (for example) and do whatever you pleased with the source?
People won't have to deal with a "computer", command line, or even GUI. Linux most of all will be forgotten. They'll just walk up to a terminal or use their cell phone or Internet Appliance or Palm Pilot type of device or Kiosk or TV. People will know nothing of computers.
But what are their internet appliances or Palms if not computers?
I agree absolutely that, as computers move into the mainstream, they become less visible. But they're not going to disappear.
Using myself as an example, a substantial percentage of my computer use is Internet access or something on the Palm. Would I be satisfied wth just that, though? No way. I've got a fair selection of games I very much enjoy. I write music. I write essays. I sometimes even write code:) And I'm not that unusual. People do buy computers for Internet access, but they also buy them for word processors, CD ROM libraries, personal finance management, even games. The computer isn't an end in itself like it is for many of us, but it's still relevant.
AOL quite possibly could become much larger than it is now. AOL was limited to dial-up access... that's why they and other Online Content Providers were lobbying Congress to open up cable internet access.Well, AOL just bought a cable company.
Can you say WebTV? AOL will do it right. Set-top boxes will allow AOL to come to your TV. Talk about a whole new market and new users. These people don't even have PCs and AOL could get to them and bring them Internet access.
Potentially, yes - and I'm sure they'll try eventually.
The point I was making, though, is that their current market has a very real clock ticking on it. They may well manage to move across to the business model (and necessary software updates) that your example suggests. But I wouldn't put a lot of money on it if I were you. Historically, the big players in one cycle of a market rarely make it across to the next with their power intact. This certainly makes it easier for AOL but I still wouldn't bank on them getting it right.
This marks a new beginning. This could be the end of PCs as we know them. Only techies and "hackers" like us will have PC boxes. PCs will become like what this industry started out as. Something for geeks.
The end of PCs as we know them, sure. PCs as we know them are a nasty, antiquated echnology which should have been dead and buried years ago. But you seem to be suggesting that the only people using anything which we'd recognise as a computer will be the geeks - indeed, you seem to relish the prospect.
Sorry, but that's elitist and it's not going to happen. The PC has taken off because it's incredibly useful, NOT because of the Internet. Home computer ownership had been balooning for a good while before net access became even sligtly common over here and people aren't suddely abandoning what they did with their computers before because they've now got an Internet connection.
I suspect that, in 20 years, the only ones using CLIs and current-style GUIs on kit-of-parts machines like we have today, will be us geeks. But that's a very narrow definition of Computing. The rest of the population will still be using what are recognisably computers, they just won't resemble what we're using now all that closely - simply as what we have now isn't all that clever a solution, not because it doesn't fulfil a need.
I suppose this depends on your definition of computer literate:)
While I see what you mean, there's no realy need for the average user to be able to program their computer. It's good that there's some of us who can and want to, but most simply don't need to, so defining literacy in terms of programming ability seems a little excessive to me:)
I suppose my point is that there's an awful lot of people out there who are scared to touch their computers and so don't really use them even halfway properly. In 20 years time, anyone under the age of 40 (in this country at least) is going to have grown up with computers just another everyday part of life, even if only via school. And a fair percentage of people over 40 will have taken the trouble to learn and will be able to use their computers. That's what's relevant, not techy knowledge.
Let's look at a simpler machine - your (hypothetical) car. Did you build it yourself? Unlikely. Did you design it yourself? Extremely unlikely. Do you service it yourself beyond checking fluid levels and tyre pressures? Probably not. Can you explain how the various bits work and what they do? Possibly, but by no means guaranteed. Can you drive it? Yes, almost certainly - in this hypothetical example, at least.
That's the level of literacy I think we have to regard as the likely target. It really doesn't matter if most people can build their own computer, write their own software or even explain how the different bits inside it work. What matters is whether they can use it effectively. And, in that example timeperiod, I would expect the number of people who can use their computer effectively to go through the roof. At which point the market for an AOL disappears.
I can see this happening with other people as well. They get "online" via AOL, use it for awhile and "discover the Internet." Then they start to realize that AOL puts a lot of limitations on what they can do on the Internet, so they drop it for a normal ISP service.
I think we'd mostly agree that this deal is only really possible due to the absurd valuation of most Internet stocks, but...
This illustrates the real problem with this deal beautifully. AOL are doing very nicely at connecting new users who are scared of their new computers and absolutely terrified on the Internet. But this isn't a long term market.
Come back in 20 years time and you'll see a vastly more computer literate society, with the Internet just another media. Where's the place for AOL?
For long-term survival, they need to reinvent themselves HUGELY. They need to become a proper Internet service with a decent interface and connection. Or they'll wither and die, simply because there isn't any quantity of people who need a few year's gentle introduction to the Internet to sustain them.
Can they do this? Maybe. It's not entirely unknown for big, dinosaur companies (which, in Internet terms, AOL most definitely is) to manage a complete about-face and get back on track. I'd say IBM's making a pretty good job of it right now. But it's not all that common, really.
I suspect this is one of those deals which, in 5-10 years time, we'll look back at and laugh that it ever happened. Or cry, if you've got Time Warner stock right now.
These wallets, nice as they are, aren't free. Someone has to pay for them and I can't see the card companies and banks being all that keen to shell out until they absolutely have to. Plus, it makes them harder to use as you've go it to your computer, so I can't see the average user being all that keen, either.
Nice idea but I can't see that this is much better suited to the Internet than standard cards. It's not what this is designed to do, either - this is a digital replacement for hard currency.
... and I'm the guy who moaned to the bank when 60ish pence (around $1 US) disappeard without permission:) For UK users, The Woolwich happily dealt with this and changed my card.
Seriously, what security methods are there on credit/debit cards? Two. The signature on the back to stop you nicking someone else's card and using it due to your inability to convincingly duplicate the signature, and the hologram on the front to stop you making your own (fake) cards and using them illegally. Both rely on eyesight and retailer, card and user being together.
What we need is for someone to recognise that cards are simply not suitable for the purposes they're being used for now - remote ordering - and setting up something stronger, like sending out encryption keys for use with online transactions.
But this is relatively expensive and makes spending money harder, so isn't going to happen all that soon...
Re:And the answer... (and rest of the questions...
on
The Simpsons Turn 10
·
· Score: 1
You can actually deduce this with even less knowledge of American geography:)
In Simpson Tide, we see a map indicating Springfield on the west coast.
In, erm, can't remember the title, the one with Proposition 24 where Apu finally becomes a citizen, we see them pointing to Springfield on a map. Bart's head obscures Lisa pointing, but the west coast is clear.
Conclusion: no fixed location, just plenty of conflicting clues to wind people up with:) And sorry if this is wrong, it's all from memory.
My current wild dream is, when I've got a house to put them in (student ATM) is to wire up a network with a couple of old, cheap PCs on it. Each one could act as an MP3 (or whatever format seems sensible at the time) player for that room, but if I manage to play about well enough with databases then the ideal would be to have transparently distributed storage. That is, each machine having a local HDD or two full of music but the lot capable of playing the music from each other (hence a fast network) without the user needing to know which machine it was on. Never know, if I splash out on 100M switches and slightly faster machines I might even be able to do this with video!
The biggest problem TBH is an OS. You need something cheap, VERY fast to start up - who'd tolerate a stereo that took 2 mins to warm up? - and no problems being switched off as and when. Not that either would be done that often being networked, but you get the idea. DOS would be quite usable if only it supported bigger volumes.
The other amusing dream would be for the car. Stick a network cable running out to the garage (all hypothetical here, of course...). Now, the car's got a normal stereo, but it's also got a parallel cradle for a WinCE PDA. Mostly to support it, but probably handling power, network connection and the sound out to the normal stereo. Battery life isn't an issue as it's running off the car electrics, weight not a problem as it's not in my pocket:) Plus it's got a nice, fast processor and a colour touchscreen for the interface.
Now, connect one of them to an IBM Microdrive. 340MB tops right now, but that's with a tiny data density so wait a year or so (inside which I can't afford this anyway!) and gig or so drives become perfectly feasible. So, you pump your gig of music onto this little drive which buffers the relevant songs into the huge memory as and when needed, and they're all accessible via a nice colour touchscreen. I@mm pretty sure I've seen dictation software out there too, in case you want to do anything useful with it and not just use it as a fancy stereo:)
"Unconventional", given the presence of Linus, means what it says. Don't expect a clone of an existing device.
As with Linux, his other major work, you mean?
The guy's obviously a very good programmer and Transmeta having hired him suggests he knows what he's doing at a hardware level, too, even if he's just been designing microcode or abstraction layers. But to say that his presence makes an unconventional result a near certainty is crazy. How do we know this guy? Because he wrote a Unix clone.
... which goes to show a big problem with the current moderation system.
For a little while now, whenever I've had moderator access and been moderating, I set the system to view NEWEST first within the threads, with a threshold of -1. That way I've got the highest chance of actually reading unmoderated posts and doing something useful, rather than moving a 4 to a 5, which is pretty useless outside of interview questions, nice as it was to get a 5 myself recently:)
Why can't this be built into the software or, at least, the moderation guidelines?
Slashdot Mirror
... and this still isn't going to boot especially fast or work nicely on that small screen.
:)
They seem to be focussing on webpads to a degree so far. I'd love to see what'd happen with a PDA, as that strikes me as a bigger market.
Speaking as a Palm III owner, here
Greg
Er...
:)
I doubt they're getting you to drink ethanol, somehow. Pure ethanol's toxic, too.
Or at least was last time I heard. No chemistry lessons for 5 years, though
Greg
Oops, that should be Jordan, not Jordaon :(
I did press preview, honest, but Netscape had locked and, in hammering on the button to make it do something I must have slipped. Oh well...
Greg
I'm an F1 fan and I'm sorry but that's not correct.
:)
F1 runs on standard pump unleaded. They used to run on all sorts of exotic things - toluene, mostly, IIRC - but they changed the rules a few years back. Now it's basically the same as what your car runs on.
Champ Cars - the US domestic series - run on Methanol. The cars look reasonably similar to a non-fan
Also, F1's only had refuelling since '94 or so. They DID have a spectacular pit fire in '94 at Hockenheim (Germany), though - Benetton had removed a filter to try and speed refuelling slightly but gravel got caught in the valve and it jammed open, spraying fuel everywhere. And, being petrol, the fire was visible.
There's been two other fires, since - Pedro Diniz for Ligier had a leaky valve and the car went up on the track, while Jordaon (IIRC) had a fire in the pits at Spa Francorchamps (Belgium) though I can't remember the cause or driver, sorry.
Greg
That's nearly correct :)
:)
There is an instruction set to any processor, or it doesn't work. By defintion.
The point is that, with something like a P-II or a Crusoe (from what I can see right now) the instruction set really isn't very relevant. It's not accessible and it probably wouldn't even be especially easy to use if you could. The simple idea of this is that they can make this core full of micro-ops run faster after translation than they can get the standard core, so they do it that way.
I agree that it would appear that they've replaced the static translation firmware with dynamic, reprogrammable software. It definitely has an instruction set - and this could get even more interesting if that's accessible - but the whole point of this is that the translation is blindingly fast.
Whatever, I'm interested
Greg
Oops...
It seems there's a problem with the KOSH server ATM. The web address above isn't valid and the mailinglists are on the blink. Oh.
The website is still available at http://kosh.convergence.org/ and we're trying to find the best way to get our mailinglists back.
Anyway, if anyone wants any info, mail me (greg@kosh.convergence.org or the address above) and I'll answer any questions.
Greg
Interesting idea. Nice one.
:) - now if I haven't been moderated up once in the interim?
The main modification I'd make, though, would be to make Karma degrade over time. I'm on 30ish right now (which is nothing spectacular in the grand scheme of things) so it'd take quite a bit of trolling for me to lose my +1 bonus. That isn't right.
The point is, people change. Why should I be rewarded in two years time for making good posts - in the opinions of some moderators
It'd also be interesting to see auto +1's appearing in meta moderation to se if we could lost Karma that way...
Greg
Computers are fundamentally useful things that aren't going to be replaced (IMO) by simple Internet terminals. But I'd agree that the iMac is a lot closer to the likely future model of computers than the PC I'm typing on right now. It just makes more sense for 99% of users.My apologies for misunderstanding you - it appeared that you were suggesting that Internet terminals and mobile phones would be all most would use - something I'd wholeheartedly disagree with. Thanks for clearing that one up.Actually, I think that's already happening in many ways.
The thing is, computers have (traditionally) made a virtue of being obviously computers - both in their physical presence and their interface. That might sound odd, but think about it. They've very deliberately gone their own way in terms of interfaces. With good reason as a niche product as the interface is more efficient once you know how to use it, but not so good for a novice user - indeed, potentially intimidating.
Most of the more modern devices seem to be doing their level best to hide what they are. Take your mall information system, for example. That sort of thing exists quite often over here, but almost always in the form of a touchscreen map and index. The idea being to make the interface as close as possible to what they're already used to.
Now, UK readers, think of teletext or the Sky Digital program guide. Neither's an especialy efficient interface but both are simple (basically menu systems) and easy to pick up.
The main thing people are trying to work around here is fear. Fear of computers. So many of these devices are moving towards simpler, less efficient interfaces in the quest for easy of learning.
But do I see this as a long-term thing? No. The whole reason for doing this is to get people using computers who wouldn't today because they regard them as nasty, scary boxes that commit suicide the instant they touch them. But who tends to hold this attitude? Adults, especially those who haven't grown up with computers.
For those of you who haven't read my webpage - most of you I'm guessing
But how many of them are scared of their computer and would benefit from an AOL-style interface? Well, I haven't noticed any yet. We're talking here about a group who've grown up with computers just another fact of life and use them relatively intuitively. They might not find the little details that make computing easier, but they can do the basics. And they don't need an AOL.
Now, let's look the previously stated 20 years down the road. Accidents an illness excepted, I'll be 40. And most people (in this country, as I said earlier) younger than me will have grown up with computers an everyday fact of life. Some of the older generations will have taught themselves, too.
There's always going to be a place for the AOL-style interfaces in the appliances where the fact that it's a computer is irrelevant - mall guides, that web connected fridge, stuff like that. But in the rest of the world? Unlikely. PCs and their interfaces won't be in their current form, but they're not going to look much like AOL either.My apologies. That was how I read your original post (I'm assuming we're talking the same anonymous poster here!) but if that wasn't what you meant, sorry. I can see that, but I can't imagine it happening in all that huge numbers, TBH.
This comes down to the issue of trust in many ways. I accept that the average slashdot poster is probably a little more paranoid than the average Internet user, but people still think about this sort of thing. And do you want your personal files all stored on your ISP's computer but nowhere else? Your bank records? Job applications? Personal projects?
Also, what happens if the network dies? Doesn't happen all that often, I'll agree, but it happens every now and then. Do you want your computer to become a useless box then?
Simple economics dictates that this will happen to some degree or another as it's potentially cheaper. But I can't see the amrket penetration being that high.Potentially, yes. Potentially, this sort of thing is very useful indeed. But is it going to take over? To some degree, inevitably. But majority access method, no. I can't see that.Yes, there was definitely an element of crossed wires between us. But I'm still not quite sure we're agreeing here...
Y'see, while I see what you say, I can't believe that computers are going to become that invisible. They're going to become rather different, certainly, but I can't see it going as far as you seem to suggest.
Incidentally, if I was Mr Ballmer...
Ramp up Windows CE. It's a far more sensible long-term bet than 2000. Leave that for us enthusiasts / geeks, but CE makes more sense for the average user. Just give it disk drive support and you've got something potentially much nicer. My age unfortunately stops my having that much experience, but I'm not far off.
Seriously, I never remeber not having some form of computer around the house. We had a Sinclair ZX81, then a Spectrum. We got an Amiga in '93, a Windows box in '96. I got a Palm last year
Anyway, it's been interesting comparing visions here
Greg
But, in this business model, the pie is the recipe. There's no practical value in anything other than the source.
Hence the analogy holds. Free software is fine and I applaud people for giving away their source, but to then demand others follow up your act isn't right.
Nor, for that matter, is to demand that their revisions to your software should be licensed under the same license you chose. That's a restriction on freedom of use, too...
Greg
The point is, while the direct unit cost of any software product may well be insignificant compared to its price, its sale would not be possible without substantial development overheads. The fact that they do not alter substantially depending on the number of sales does not mean that their cost should be disregarded.
Your problem here is an over-simplistic view of economics coupled to idealism. While I'm glad to see idealists, it's a pity you're letting it cloud your judgment here.
Greg
My recollection of a friend at Southampton's e-mail address suggests you're a Computer Science Student. I am too.
I fully understand that view, I've seen it argued here many a time. But I'm yet to see any coherent explanation for why our labours and use of skills as software engineers should automatically be donated to the community for free to do with as they wish while I am free to sell the results of my labours as a musician.
Software development is a skill which takes a considerable amount of time and skill for most to develop to any standard. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't code, doesn't code well or is absurdly talented. Now, there is a demand for this skill. So why should I not be able to sell my code? Because, whatever some may say, selling GPL'd code simply isn't practical.
Greg
If you give me some apples but then demand a share of any pies I make, you're not really sharing.
Your attitude is quite common but nonetheless reprehensible. If you think your software should be free, all power to you and you have my congratulations. But that doesn't then give you the right to demand the same of others.
Free shouldn't mean "I'll share mine if you'll share yours" as that's a restriction itself.
Greg
You didn't read the original post very thoroughly, did you?
I'll quote: Linux does not need open source to be used. How many users actually use the source. It aided its development and growth, but not its usage.
No one is debating that Linux's development has been aided hugely by its open nature. But how many people using Linux today are doing so because they can get at the source? Some, sure, but not that many. Not that many have the education to understand the source (before I get flamed, I'm not being an elitist CS student - I couldn't understand the source) in the first place, so it's irrelevant.
Development has been aided, sure. Development has added to features and performance which have attracted users, sure. But users have been directly attracted due to the open nature? No, not in any great quantity. Believe what you like but to say anything else is to stick your head in the sand.
Greg
Interesting. Very interesting :)
:)
One thing I've noticed in this debate, though - one specific legal system is being assumed. Specifically, the US legal system.
Folks, slashdot is NOT an American-only site and there is a world out there with different laws. While I accept that most of the posters are American due to simple net demographics, I am not
The GPL may well stand up in an American court, or it may not. I really don't know and I'm not a lawyer - though the libraries argument seemed pretty persuasive to me. But what would happen if (hypothetically) I decided that I was determined to violate the GPL out of simple nastiness. I'm in the UK right now - could I do so legally? Or, say, in other member states of the EU (as I have basic freedom of movement within the EU) or the G8?
It's all well and good debating whether it stands up under US law, but when we're distributing these things across the world is it very relevant if you could hop over the border to Canada or Mexico (for example) and do whatever you pleased with the source?
Greg
I agree absolutely that, as computers move into the mainstream, they become less visible. But they're not going to disappear.
Using myself as an example, a substantial percentage of my computer use is Internet access or something on the Palm. Would I be satisfied wth just that, though? No way. I've got a fair selection of games I very much enjoy. I write music. I write essays. I sometimes even write code
The point I was making, though, is that their current market has a very real clock ticking on it. They may well manage to move across to the business model (and necessary software updates) that your example suggests. But I wouldn't put a lot of money on it if I were you. Historically, the big players in one cycle of a market rarely make it across to the next with their power intact. This certainly makes it easier for AOL but I still wouldn't bank on them getting it right. The end of PCs as we know them, sure. PCs as we know them are a nasty, antiquated echnology which should have been dead and buried years ago. But you seem to be suggesting that the only people using anything which we'd recognise as a computer will be the geeks - indeed, you seem to relish the prospect.
Sorry, but that's elitist and it's not going to happen. The PC has taken off because it's incredibly useful, NOT because of the Internet. Home computer ownership had been balooning for a good while before net access became even sligtly common over here and people aren't suddely abandoning what they did with their computers before because they've now got an Internet connection.
I suspect that, in 20 years, the only ones using CLIs and current-style GUIs on kit-of-parts machines like we have today, will be us geeks. But that's a very narrow definition of Computing. The rest of the population will still be using what are recognisably computers, they just won't resemble what we're using now all that closely - simply as what we have now isn't all that clever a solution, not because it doesn't fulfil a need.
Greg
I suppose this depends on your definition of computer literate :)
:)
While I see what you mean, there's no realy need for the average user to be able to program their computer. It's good that there's some of us who can and want to, but most simply don't need to, so defining literacy in terms of programming ability seems a little excessive to me
I suppose my point is that there's an awful lot of people out there who are scared to touch their computers and so don't really use them even halfway properly. In 20 years time, anyone under the age of 40 (in this country at least) is going to have grown up with computers just another everyday part of life, even if only via school. And a fair percentage of people over 40 will have taken the trouble to learn and will be able to use their computers. That's what's relevant, not techy knowledge.
Let's look at a simpler machine - your (hypothetical) car. Did you build it yourself? Unlikely. Did you design it yourself? Extremely unlikely. Do you service it yourself beyond checking fluid levels and tyre pressures? Probably not. Can you explain how the various bits work and what they do? Possibly, but by no means guaranteed. Can you drive it? Yes, almost certainly - in this hypothetical example, at least.
That's the level of literacy I think we have to regard as the likely target. It really doesn't matter if most people can build their own computer, write their own software or even explain how the different bits inside it work. What matters is whether they can use it effectively. And, in that example timeperiod, I would expect the number of people who can use their computer effectively to go through the roof. At which point the market for an AOL disappears.
Greg
This illustrates the real problem with this deal beautifully. AOL are doing very nicely at connecting new users who are scared of their new computers and absolutely terrified on the Internet. But this isn't a long term market.
Come back in 20 years time and you'll see a vastly more computer literate society, with the Internet just another media. Where's the place for AOL?
For long-term survival, they need to reinvent themselves HUGELY. They need to become a proper Internet service with a decent interface and connection. Or they'll wither and die, simply because there isn't any quantity of people who need a few year's gentle introduction to the Internet to sustain them.
Can they do this? Maybe. It's not entirely unknown for big, dinosaur companies (which, in Internet terms, AOL most definitely is) to manage a complete about-face and get back on track. I'd say IBM's making a pretty good job of it right now. But it's not all that common, really.
I suspect this is one of those deals which, in 5-10 years time, we'll look back at and laugh that it ever happened. Or cry, if you've got Time Warner stock right now.
Greg
Whoops...
:(
:(
Forgot to preview it AND forgot to account for a slow communal computer overunning the text buffer as I typed while it was locked
Plus, it makes them harder to use as you've go it to your computer, so I can't see the average user being all that keen, either.
should have read:
Plus, it makes them harder to use as you've got to connect it to your computer, so I can't see the average user being all that keen, either.
Sorry
Greg
These wallets, nice as they are, aren't free. Someone has to pay for them and I can't see the card companies and banks being all that keen to shell out until they absolutely have to. Plus, it makes them harder to use as you've go it to your computer, so I can't see the average user being all that keen, either.
Nice idea but I can't see that this is much better suited to the Internet than standard cards. It's not what this is designed to do, either - this is a digital replacement for hard currency.
Greg
... and I'm the guy who moaned to the bank when 60ish pence (around $1 US) disappeard without permission :) For UK users, The Woolwich happily dealt with this and changed my card.
Seriously, what security methods are there on credit/debit cards? Two. The signature on the back to stop you nicking someone else's card and using it due to your inability to convincingly duplicate the signature, and the hologram on the front to stop you making your own (fake) cards and using them illegally. Both rely on eyesight and retailer, card and user being together.
What we need is for someone to recognise that cards are simply not suitable for the purposes they're being used for now - remote ordering - and setting up something stronger, like sending out encryption keys for use with online transactions.
But this is relatively expensive and makes spending money harder, so isn't going to happen all that soon...
Greg
IIRC, CompuGlobal Hyper Meganet :)
Greg
You can actually deduce this with even less knowledge of American geography :)
:) And sorry if this is wrong, it's all from memory.
In Simpson Tide, we see a map indicating Springfield on the west coast.
In, erm, can't remember the title, the one with Proposition 24 where Apu finally becomes a citizen, we see them pointing to Springfield on a map. Bart's head obscures Lisa pointing, but the west coast is clear.
Conclusion: no fixed location, just plenty of conflicting clues to wind people up with
Greg
Ooh, that sounds nice.
:) Plus it's got a nice, fast processor and a colour touchscreen for the interface.
:)
My current wild dream is, when I've got a house to put them in (student ATM) is to wire up a network with a couple of old, cheap PCs on it. Each one could act as an MP3 (or whatever format seems sensible at the time) player for that room, but if I manage to play about well enough with databases then the ideal would be to have transparently distributed storage. That is, each machine having a local HDD or two full of music but the lot capable of playing the music from each other (hence a fast network) without the user needing to know which machine it was on. Never know, if I splash out on 100M switches and slightly faster machines I might even be able to do this with video!
The biggest problem TBH is an OS. You need something cheap, VERY fast to start up - who'd tolerate a stereo that took 2 mins to warm up? - and no problems being switched off as and when. Not that either would be done that often being networked, but you get the idea. DOS would be quite usable if only it supported bigger volumes.
The other amusing dream would be for the car. Stick a network cable running out to the garage (all hypothetical here, of course...). Now, the car's got a normal stereo, but it's also got a parallel cradle for a WinCE PDA. Mostly to support it, but probably handling power, network connection and the sound out to the normal stereo. Battery life isn't an issue as it's running off the car electrics, weight not a problem as it's not in my pocket
Now, connect one of them to an IBM Microdrive. 340MB tops right now, but that's with a tiny data density so wait a year or so (inside which I can't afford this anyway!) and gig or so drives become perfectly feasible. So, you pump your gig of music onto this little drive which buffers the relevant songs into the huge memory as and when needed, and they're all accessible via a nice colour touchscreen. I@mm pretty sure I've seen dictation software out there too, in case you want to do anything useful with it and not just use it as a fancy stereo
Anyone else want one now?
Greg
The guy's obviously a very good programmer and Transmeta having hired him suggests he knows what he's doing at a hardware level, too, even if he's just been designing microcode or abstraction layers. But to say that his presence makes an unconventional result a near certainty is crazy. How do we know this guy? Because he wrote a Unix clone.
Greg
... which goes to show a big problem with the current moderation system.
:)
For a little while now, whenever I've had moderator access and been moderating, I set the system to view NEWEST first within the threads, with a threshold of -1. That way I've got the highest chance of actually reading unmoderated posts and doing something useful, rather than moving a 4 to a 5, which is pretty useless outside of interview questions, nice as it was to get a 5 myself recently
Why can't this be built into the software or, at least, the moderation guidelines?
Greg