Even though it's almost 6 mo. away, I don't think I will jump on the bandwagon right then. When the time comes, I will extend a warm welcome to our Windows 7 overlords.
But how much can Windows be worth these days if a new computer can be purchased for $300 - $400? Surely most of this price is for the hardware. If Windows was priced according to this math, I'll willing to buy an upgrade.
Who is going to not call it swine flu after all the hubbub?
But if we want to put Colbert's name on anything how about on a swine?
BTW does anyone know if Colbert has the flu? Like they say "that truck has your name on it", I don't think he wants his name on the flu. But if he has the flu, anyone who wants to snuggle with him can call it the Colbert flu.
There are many untapped aspects of graphics. Showing a multiple-screens, multiple-angles viewpoint better is in immediate demand, but really high dpi, dots per inch, has yet to be available to budget PC users. Several years ago, IBM was reported to have monitors that have a resolution equivalent to what you find on the printed page. With that kind of resolution, a typical small laptop screen should fit inside 1 square inch with room to spare. I don't know if this is CRT technology rather than LCD, but higher resolution could be around the corner.
After 2D, there's 3D, and real time 3D. So keep buying better graphics, and there will be even better graphics coming.
There is a huge potential market but the people who put this fantastic technology together can't take advantage of the situation??? If the customer comes to the door but can't get in, don't whine about losing money.
If they drive away customers, someone else will take up the business. It's just a matter of selling them something they want.
The prevailing theory is that the flu rapidly evolves to be infectious to different species so if it can jump from Tweety or Porky to man, then it can jump from Porky to Tweety to lots more man. Usually a flu bug stays in species but kaboom there are lots of cases of swine flu, and vaccines might not have been prepared against it because no one was expecting the flu to come that way. Usually vaccines are prepared in advance for what's coming down the pike. This would mean immunity is low and people will have to not breathe other people's breath.
What can one say? HEPA filters? Stay away from Tweety? If there's anything that is looking for stimulus spending, it's medical research.
But you can say the same about the people who don't want to be pharmacists: "Do you shun the practice of medicine because you want to live among the sick?"
It's all about money? Fine. Then why not just let the market decide. Anything that is earning at least 2 or 3 standard deviations below the mean after an arbitrary number of years, 10 years is a good target, is automatically copyright-renewed for another 10. But there has to be provision for adequate supply relative to demand rather than prices being artificially raised by scarcity, that is, prices are based on costs of production, and copyright is based on volume sold rather than per unit pricing. As a result, even stuff that is free could be copyrighted as a sign of its impact.
The existing and even the old system seems to be a bit outmoded. Copying was a lot harder in the past so that was already a deterrent. Now, the opposite is happening. Not only is it easier to copy, but it's so much easier to create that good stuff is buried under the unending streams of average and mediocre. The
For vendors, the catch is that copyright would expire if they do not adequately market or make something available. Material that becomes obsolete should lose copyright quickly. Material that does not have price competitiveness would also lose copyright quickly but is that really a big loss?
The whole idea of copyrights will come to a technological head anyways. The algorithms and guidelines of creativity will become more understood, and computers will be creating very appealing works, but these algorithms will be available for everyone to use. So who has the copyright if independent computers generate the same output? Maybe for the sake of example someone can point out claims over snapshots of the Mandelbrot set?
Much as I love to watch videos on the Internet, it does take a ton of bits and bytes. I watched a couple of hours yesterday, and my Task Manager says over 2 Gb were flowing. The service is quite good, but if more people start, it might get bad or more expensive.
ISPs should offer a way to cache preselected video at their servers via overnight traffic so the whole network isn't so stressed in the day. Is there any caching of popular video content so that if 1 out of a 10000, let's say, watch a clip in a city/region, the video is stored at a closer location?
All things being equal, some day learning will be automated. Do you remember the last time you didn't know how to walk? That's what it will feel like. You do something and you don't even remember never having done it. You think you've been doing it your whole life. Yesterday, I couldn't even walk? What a surprise today! Even this moment doesn't happen.
This bureaucracy is costing me as a taxpayer. Why can't government in the computer age either find good use for money rather than waste it or just make budgets flexible year to year?
A play on words. The statement Google losing up to $1.65M a day on YouTube can be understood in a different way. Show a video of Google losing this money every day. That is, let's see a Google accountant adding up the books, pointing out the revenues and expenses, and obtaining a total on daily basis for, say, a week or a month.
I never paid Google anything for its services. Can Wikipedia store video (not the gifs)?
Is Google really about profits? Google is a phenomenon. Google is about capturing organized information. It's about evading entropy. There should be a long-term benefit from this.
If it was, they would have done something about it before this news came out, wouldn't they? After all, one can only think they learned something from Vista not to mention decades in the OS business.
So I can only think this is exactly what Microsoft wants. How can people not buying be so good?
To begin with, a lot of people are going to IMBY (in my back yard). Let the "neighbor" businesses have the pains of upgrading. That's just SOP (standard operating procedure), though, so Microsoft just shrugs, just the cost of doing business in the OS world. No biggie.
Then right away, instead of 83%, it's more like 83 minus 50 or 83 minus 60 percent that gives any cause for concern. If Windows 7 gets a good reputation from the early birds, purchases will go up.
So finally, there's always the same old problem that is facing manufacturers everywhere: make it too good and no one will buy an upgrade. By the time Windows 7 seeps into computers Windows 8 is just around the corner. Is XP good enough? fast enough? Sure it is. It just proves that Microsoft has the ability to make a winner. If Windows 7 is a winner, Windows 8 and 9 may be the ultimate losers - so Windows 7 has to serve as a marketing engine for Windows 8. Very complex, but one can only bet that Windows 8 and maybe 9 is under development right now.
One can foresee that Windows 7 ought to sell fairly well anyways - there is a lot of hunger for change. There are many new hardware features coming, and Windows 7 will just make life better for new computers.
>Italy is a country with high risks of earthquakes and exceedingly poor construction and preparation
Aside from the obvious cost of building for earthquakes, why is the construction poor? Do people think "oh well, the next earthquake is going to knock it down, so why bother?"
Instead of rooms that are cubic, how about rooms that are triangularly braced? A lot of space is consumed, but at the end of the day it's still standing.
So far, people are saying he did it right, he did it wrong.
Ok, something happened so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if he has an improved method that actually works. Let him get more data and make more predictions and measurements. Let some others use the same technique, and clear up whether a breakthrough exists.
Meanwhile, here's a stimulus: earthquake proof infrastructure. The economy of the last few years was kept going by people spending to gain lifestyle. Earthquake proofing is not much in improved lifestyle, but if lifestyle spending has dropped off a cliff, then safety spending might as well get some people back to work.
So actually the whole problem is an industry problem. The desired number of years (15) is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 100 years? Plants are designed to withstand storms and events that take place once per 100 years, though minor items might fail from time to time.
Industry looks at the needs of people: people think of replacing their computers every few years, but might not actually do it so the computer industry makes things that don't all last for decades. Things like power cords and keyboards might take ridiculous amounts of abuse because they're relatively large compared to Planck's constant but Moore's law makes it far more attractive to replace the high-end parts.
The vet is looking for a high-end cash register (I do know more about vet computing because I wrote software for animal diagnostics-but vets basically have a database of test results and bill owners for procedures and tests; there's little in the way of dealing with pharmacies, health insurance, etc, etc). Not so many decades ago, cash registers, even the electronic ones, don't appear to die at a moment's notice. They take a pounding from people opening and slamming the drawers, as well as wedging rolls of paper into the innards, and steady maintenance was required to keep everything in shape. Today, the cost of maintenance is replaced by the purchase price of a replacement. Cash registers used to cost thousands. Computers used to cost even more. Maintenance was at least 50 bucks per visit. If computers only cost about two hundred for a new one capable of running DOS, and come with three-year warranties, the economics say that the computer might be expected to survive for twice the warranty period-why go to the extra trouble of designing an over-the-top machine that lasts just twice as long (12 years, stretchable to 15) as the most basic machine you can find? As the machine gets older, the maintenance becomes even more oppressive and the total cost of ownership would be in the thousands. About 10 years from now, computer interfaces would probably be available anywhere in the form of holograms talking to a server anyways. Who's going to run a dedicated machine as a cash register?
Slashdot Mirror
Even though it's almost 6 mo. away, I don't think I will jump on the bandwagon right then. When the time comes, I will extend a warm welcome to our Windows 7 overlords.
But how much can Windows be worth these days if a new computer can be purchased for $300 - $400? Surely most of this price is for the hardware. If Windows was priced according to this math, I'll willing to buy an upgrade.
And the world has not been driven to dysfunctionalty by the freewheeling Internet, so censors and critics may as well get a life
Who is going to not call it swine flu after all the hubbub?
But if we want to put Colbert's name on anything how about on a swine?
BTW does anyone know if Colbert has the flu? Like they say "that truck has your name on it", I don't think he wants his name on the flu. But if he has the flu, anyone who wants to snuggle with him can call it the Colbert flu.
There are many untapped aspects of graphics. Showing a multiple-screens, multiple-angles viewpoint better is in immediate demand, but really high dpi, dots per inch, has yet to be available to budget PC users. Several years ago, IBM was reported to have monitors that have a resolution equivalent to what you find on the printed page. With that kind of resolution, a typical small laptop screen should fit inside 1 square inch with room to spare. I don't know if this is CRT technology rather than LCD, but higher resolution could be around the corner.
After 2D, there's 3D, and real time 3D. So keep buying better graphics, and there will be even better graphics coming.
There is a huge potential market but the people who put this fantastic technology together can't take advantage of the situation??? If the customer comes to the door but can't get in, don't whine about losing money.
If they drive away customers, someone else will take up the business. It's just a matter of selling them something they want.
... Browsing at +2 revealed very few comments, so maybe I'll see what's happening at -1. Funny. And disturbing.
That will happen when ...
It's on! A pig just flu by.
The prevailing theory is that the flu rapidly evolves to be infectious to different species so if it can jump from Tweety or Porky to man, then it can jump from Porky to Tweety to lots more man. Usually a flu bug stays in species but kaboom there are lots of cases of swine flu, and vaccines might not have been prepared against it because no one was expecting the flu to come that way. Usually vaccines are prepared in advance for what's coming down the pike. This would mean immunity is low and people will have to not breathe other people's breath.
What can one say? HEPA filters? Stay away from Tweety? If there's anything that is looking for stimulus spending, it's medical research.
But you can say the same about the people who don't want to be pharmacists: "Do you shun the practice of medicine because you want to live among the sick?"
It's all about money? Fine. Then why not just let the market decide. Anything that is earning at least 2 or 3 standard deviations below the mean after an arbitrary number of years, 10 years is a good target, is automatically copyright-renewed for another 10. But there has to be provision for adequate supply relative to demand rather than prices being artificially raised by scarcity, that is, prices are based on costs of production, and copyright is based on volume sold rather than per unit pricing. As a result, even stuff that is free could be copyrighted as a sign of its impact.
The existing and even the old system seems to be a bit outmoded. Copying was a lot harder in the past so that was already a deterrent. Now, the opposite is happening. Not only is it easier to copy, but it's so much easier to create that good stuff is buried under the unending streams of average and mediocre. The
For vendors, the catch is that copyright would expire if they do not adequately market or make something available. Material that becomes obsolete should lose copyright quickly. Material that does not have price competitiveness would also lose copyright quickly but is that really a big loss?
The whole idea of copyrights will come to a technological head anyways. The algorithms and guidelines of creativity will become more understood, and computers will be creating very appealing works, but these algorithms will be available for everyone to use. So who has the copyright if independent computers generate the same output? Maybe for the sake of example someone can point out claims over snapshots of the Mandelbrot set?
Much as I love to watch videos on the Internet, it does take a ton of bits and bytes. I watched a couple of hours yesterday, and my Task Manager says over 2 Gb were flowing. The service is quite good, but if more people start, it might get bad or more expensive.
ISPs should offer a way to cache preselected video at their servers via overnight traffic so the whole network isn't so stressed in the day. Is there any caching of popular video content so that if 1 out of a 10000, let's say, watch a clip in a city/region, the video is stored at a closer location?
1. The heat of the sun is wasted.
2. Mankind converts the waste energy from the sun into ueful energy.
3. Plug your cell phone into the socket.
"I know kung fu." - Neo
All things being equal, some day learning will be automated. Do you remember the last time you didn't know how to walk? That's what it will feel like. You do something and you don't even remember never having done it. You think you've been doing it your whole life. Yesterday, I couldn't even walk? What a surprise today! Even this moment doesn't happen.
Right turn, Claude.
It's just a matter of time. The computer now, and before long, the dead.
On the head?
This bureaucracy is costing me as a taxpayer. Why can't government in the computer age either find good use for money rather than waste it or just make budgets flexible year to year?
Cold here. Going to turn up the thermostat with some chess online.
A play on words. The statement Google losing up to $1.65M a day on YouTube can be understood in a different way. Show a video of Google losing this money every day. That is, let's see a Google accountant adding up the books, pointing out the revenues and expenses, and obtaining a total on daily basis for, say, a week or a month.
I never paid Google anything for its services. Can Wikipedia store video (not the gifs)?
Is Google really about profits? Google is a phenomenon. Google is about capturing organized information. It's about evading entropy. There should be a long-term benefit from this.
Is this really bad news for Microsoft?
If it was, they would have done something about it before this news came out, wouldn't they? After all, one can only think they learned something from Vista not to mention decades in the OS business.
So I can only think this is exactly what Microsoft wants. How can people not buying be so good?
To begin with, a lot of people are going to IMBY (in my back yard). Let the "neighbor" businesses have the pains of upgrading. That's just SOP (standard operating procedure), though, so Microsoft just shrugs, just the cost of doing business in the OS world. No biggie.
Then right away, instead of 83%, it's more like 83 minus 50 or 83 minus 60 percent that gives any cause for concern. If Windows 7 gets a good reputation from the early birds, purchases will go up.
So finally, there's always the same old problem that is facing manufacturers everywhere: make it too good and no one will buy an upgrade. By the time Windows 7 seeps into computers Windows 8 is just around the corner. Is XP good enough? fast enough? Sure it is. It just proves that Microsoft has the ability to make a winner. If Windows 7 is a winner, Windows 8 and 9 may be the ultimate losers - so Windows 7 has to serve as a marketing engine for Windows 8. Very complex, but one can only bet that Windows 8 and maybe 9 is under development right now.
One can foresee that Windows 7 ought to sell fairly well anyways - there is a lot of hunger for change. There are many new hardware features coming, and Windows 7 will just make life better for new computers.
>Italy is a country with high risks of earthquakes and exceedingly poor construction and preparation
Aside from the obvious cost of building for earthquakes, why is the construction poor? Do people think "oh well, the next earthquake is going to knock it down, so why bother?"
Instead of rooms that are cubic, how about rooms that are triangularly braced? A lot of space is consumed, but at the end of the day it's still standing.
So far, people are saying he did it right, he did it wrong.
Ok, something happened so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if he has an improved method that actually works. Let him get more data and make more predictions and measurements. Let some others use the same technique, and clear up whether a breakthrough exists.
Meanwhile, here's a stimulus: earthquake proof infrastructure. The economy of the last few years was kept going by people spending to gain lifestyle. Earthquake proofing is not much in improved lifestyle, but if lifestyle spending has dropped off a cliff, then safety spending might as well get some people back to work.
>Nobody is going to disarm if another country still has nukes, that would be suicide
What about the asteroids? We still need to launch against the planet killers.
So actually the whole problem is an industry problem. The desired number of years (15) is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 100 years? Plants are designed to withstand storms and events that take place once per 100 years, though minor items might fail from time to time.
Industry looks at the needs of people: people think of replacing their computers every few years, but might not actually do it so the computer industry makes things that don't all last for decades. Things like power cords and keyboards might take ridiculous amounts of abuse because they're relatively large compared to Planck's constant but Moore's law makes it far more attractive to replace the high-end parts.
The vet is looking for a high-end cash register (I do know more about vet computing because I wrote software for animal diagnostics-but vets basically have a database of test results and bill owners for procedures and tests; there's little in the way of dealing with pharmacies, health insurance, etc, etc). Not so many decades ago, cash registers, even the electronic ones, don't appear to die at a moment's notice. They take a pounding from people opening and slamming the drawers, as well as wedging rolls of paper into the innards, and steady maintenance was required to keep everything in shape. Today, the cost of maintenance is replaced by the purchase price of a replacement. Cash registers used to cost thousands. Computers used to cost even more. Maintenance was at least 50 bucks per visit. If computers only cost about two hundred for a new one capable of running DOS, and come with three-year warranties, the economics say that the computer might be expected to survive for twice the warranty period-why go to the extra trouble of designing an over-the-top machine that lasts just twice as long (12 years, stretchable to 15) as the most basic machine you can find? As the machine gets older, the maintenance becomes even more oppressive and the total cost of ownership would be in the thousands. About 10 years from now, computer interfaces would probably be available anywhere in the form of holograms talking to a server anyways. Who's going to run a dedicated machine as a cash register?