This has been pointed out already but the $200 does not include a modem. And I ask you, WTF are you gonna do with AOL on a PC without a modem. Compare - LindowsWindows. The $30 modem price is included in $300 Windows system. So actually windows is $70. Still a good chunk but more like a 30% tax.
I think America on Line-ux is a good idea but I question the viability of an "internet appliance." Most of the technophobes I know still want to be able to do other stuff with their computer even if they never actually do it.
Re:Best part - REAL cost of Windows being exposed
on
AOL's new Linux PC
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I hadn't noticed that. WTF do you do with AOL without a modem;)
I'm very skeptical of any company that wants me to "subscribe" to anything. I think Lindows is destined for failure if they stick to that model. People like to feel a sense of ownership. They need a way to give people a fixed cost on their service and a sense of ownership over what they've downloaded. It also seems like their assuming a broadband connection for all the Chick 'N Run downloads. How many $200 computer owners have a broadband connection? I think they would be better off selling a collection of Linux application CDs on their web site. That would solve the ownership problem and the distribution problem - though of course, not the renewable income problem.
Anyway, I noticed Lindows is up from 3 free downloads to 10 with the purchase of a Lindows PC. That was definitely a good move on their part.
I think it probably goes back even a little further - "In my day, we didn't have fingers for counting. We had stumps. So we used binary and we liked it." Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions. -- Ecclesiastes 7:10
Believe it or not, people have actually looked into this. Check out this page. <Insert requisite Microsoft bashing here>
As it turns out though, people seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity to eye contact. The camera positioning of the Beamer is such that it (perhaps by coincidence) takes advantage of this asymmetry. It would be better if the camera were even closer to the screen but they probably had some engineering problems.
Actually, current research suggests that there is an asymmetry in our sensitivy to eye contact. In fact, humans seem to be less sensative when someone is looking below their eyes (I don't think the asymmetry covers where men look, though). Some folks at Stanford looked into it - look here.
On the Beamer, it appears that the camera is located just above the screen. It might be a coincidence, but this is the best setup to take advantage of the asymmetry. Add to that the small screen and eye contact is probably not an issue at all.
Still don't know if people really want video phone calls though...
IANAL, but I read through the judgement too and I got the opinion that they were saying "look, your claim is idiotic, and you know it, now go away." However, it was kinda hidden in the legalese. Take for example this line:
Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents is Barred with Respect to "Blocks of Information" Because the Applicant Made Unmistakable Assertions to Avoid the Prior Art
What this sounds like to me is that BT was basing the whole case on obfuscation and picky interpretation. But the judgment basically says that the case was so lame that it doesn't need picky interpretation.
It seems like what happened is that BT had a pretty old patent for some very specific networking-addressing scheme that they wrote before the web and URLs really caught on. Then they realized that if they generalized their very specific thing they could cover pretty much any networking-addressing scheme like the web. Sounds like the court didn't buy it at all. Every single argument BT made was rejected. That sounds like a pretty clear message to me.
The free version says you may have to hold down control to open new links... is that true for IE6?
I just switched to Mozilla when I found out there was a google toolbar clone. There are still some issues with Mozilla but its also got a few advantages. Try it if you're sick of hearing the "95% of the web uses IE" stats.
Its true that the world right now is producing more food than people could eat if they had it in front of them. The amount of food produced is not the problem. But the problem is not that we're feeding it to our animals. The problem is that political estabilishments inhibit the distribution of food. Similarly, if there were changes in the demand for beef, there would be changes in the demand for grain which would affect the production of grain. Its a very complex economic, social, and political issue.
Besides, if you really want to point to a waste of food resources you should be looking at grain-based alcohol. Granted, that doesn't do much for animal rights.
Yeah, that seems really lame. Clearly a better business model for them would be to raise the price a little bit and provide the Chicken-Run thing for free. How hard is it to figure out that the people buying $199 computers aren't just throwing their money around?
On the other hand, I like this model for my own purposes because I'm perfectly happy to buy a box with a cheap/free OS that I can immediately replace.
In general, Lindows seems a little wishy-washy. Weren't they pushing their whole Wine modification? Whatever happened to that. I looked through their website and found almost no mention of it. There was one FAQ page that mentioned it but was pretty well hidden.
I think Lindows fell for the classic dot-com lie. The one that says - get a lot of exposure and the business model will take care of itself.
I've heard a lot of people recently saying that they mess with their user agent string. I'm wondering if all those estimates that "95% of the people on the web are using IE" are incorrect because of this.
I'm just curious, why do you want websites to think you're using IE? Is it so you can visit certain sites that only allow IE?
I started using Mozilla just recently (switched from IE6). I love being able to open pages in a new tab. I also really like the popup blocking feature.
Probably my favorite feature though is that my "Back" button works correctly again. Because I am blocking all the major ad sites in my hosts file, the back button in IE doesn't work correctly when the page has ads.
The big thing I miss from IE is the google toolbar. I didn't think I used it that much but I really did. (Yes I know I can search in the navigation bar or open the search panel in Mozilla). But I want the "search within site" button, I want the "page rank" bar, I want to look at incoming links to pages, and I want to look at similar pages. And the one I used probably 50 times a day is the "cached snapshot of page" from the IE right-click menu.
I also frequently use the middle mouse button for rate-based scrolling. Mozilla doesn't seem to have this either.
Also, does Flash work with Netscape 7? I know it didn't work with Netscape 6 or Mozilla. Not that this is something to get too upset about.
I think the point was to write an application in Windows to interface with PowerPoint then write some kind of protocol to communicate between the Zaurus and the Windows app.
You could get something very simple working very quickly - for example getting the text out of the slides. Here is a link that will get you started creating a COM Addin for PowerPoint (using Visual Studio). I would recommend creating the Windows side of your app using Visual Basic. Yes, Visual Basic isn't sexy but you can have a working PowerPoint add-in in about 10 minutes. To communicate with the Zaurus, you'll probably want to use a MS Winsock control. Again, this is a standard MS thing so you can just plug it in.
Once you have the MS side working as your PowerPoint server, you just create a client on your Zaurus to talk to the server. Java would probably work nicely for that. (Theoretically, you could also create the add-in to PowerPoint using Java but you'll waste a lot of time trying to figure out how to use COM in Java. And since you're using a MS product anyway, why not go whole hog, eh?)
Try VNC first and if you don't have enough bandwidth for some reason, go with this route.
I think you are looking for Alien Technology. This is a proposed alternative to bar codes. It has several advantages over traditional barcodes. The main ones are that it reduces theft and it reduces the number of employees needed to run a store. Also, I think the cost of the individual tags was about 5 cents but it would decrease as volume goes up.
Ever seen that Visa commercial where a guy in a trenchcoat walks out of the grocery store without paying. That's the kind of thing we're talking about.
I saw a presentation by someone from alien too. That makes me wonder if this whole story isn't a red herring so they will have an excuse to go to RFID. In the presentation I saw, they were anticipating mass resistance from consumers because of the privacy concerns. They also said they were secretly testing it in some unspecified town to see how people react. That was about a year ago and I haven't heard anything since.
If I were a retailer, there is no way I would upgrade to a longer bar code when I could upgrade to RFID. But as a consumer, I'm going to avoid it as much as possible. Anyway, I think you're right that we'll be seeing this any day now.
BTW, the big technological improvement over previous RFID systems (aside from the manufacturing) is that the tag uses a kind of 3D antenna so that it can be scanned at any angle. That's how they can eliminate manual scanning.
Ha! That prompted me to do a google search on the Rorschach Test and I got this link about what psychologists are looking for during a Rorschach. That is definitely science at its best:)
Reminds me of the joke from "What about Bob":
The psychatrist has a patient, he draws a circle and says "What do you think of when you see this?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a tree and says "What do you think of that one?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a car, a house "Sex, sex, sex" The doctor says "You know you're obsessed with sex" And the patient says "Well you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."
OK, I appreciate the difference between previous chord keyboards. But I don't think this difference is why chord keyboards have failed.
I think everyone will admit that chording is a faster way to do things - so why don't we all use stenography keyboards. The reason is because they require the user to learn something new. Any technology that requires the user to learn something new faces a huge barrier to entry.
There has also been a long-standing tension between Engelbart and much of the HCI community on building for the novice versus building for the expert. For the most part, building for the novice has won out, so any user interface that requires training is frowned upon in HCI (except in very specialized fields like graphic design, modeling, stenography, etc...)
Anyway, I hope something like this catches on - its definitely cooler than graffiti.
Joking aside, the problem I have with this article is that it is applying statistics where there is not enough information to apply statistics. If we were talking about pulling marbles out of a bag then, sure, plug away with statistics.
But we're talking about coincidences in a chaotic environment. You simply can't apply statistics to these situations without thousands of simplifying assumptions.
Take the example in the story of a bird landing on the boy's head. Can you imagine trying to compute the probabiliy for this kind of an event. Compute the probability of him grabbing the bird given that the bird landed on his head given that he just said the word "mother" given that he was giving a speech about his mother dying.
Now I'm no writer but I can imagine millions of other ways this could have turned out. For example, the bird lands on his head and he freaks out and falls down some stairs to his death. Even if we ignore the part about his mother dying, what are the probabilities that a boy is giving a speech and a bird lands on his head. Certainly it could happen but how would you ever calculate a probability for it. Its madness.
That's just an example so don't get hung up with that particular example. If someone thinks they can calculate these kinds of probabilities, the department of homeland security would love to have you:)
Slashdot Mirror
This has been pointed out already but the $200 does not include a modem. And I ask you, WTF are you gonna do with AOL on a PC without a modem. Compare - Lindows Windows. The $30 modem price is included in $300 Windows system. So actually windows is $70. Still a good chunk but more like a 30% tax.
I think America on Line-ux is a good idea but I question the viability of an "internet appliance." Most of the technophobes I know still want to be able to do other stuff with their computer even if they never actually do it.
Hey, I hadn't noticed that. WTF do you do with AOL without a modem ;)
I'm very skeptical of any company that wants me to "subscribe" to anything. I think Lindows is destined for failure if they stick to that model. People like to feel a sense of ownership. They need a way to give people a fixed cost on their service and a sense of ownership over what they've downloaded. It also seems like their assuming a broadband connection for all the Chick 'N Run downloads. How many $200 computer owners have a broadband connection? I think they would be better off selling a collection of Linux application CDs on their web site. That would solve the ownership problem and the distribution problem - though of course, not the renewable income problem.
Anyway, I noticed Lindows is up from 3 free downloads to 10 with the purchase of a Lindows PC. That was definitely a good move on their part.
I think it probably goes back even a little further - "In my day, we didn't have fingers for counting. We had stumps. So we used binary and we liked it."
Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions.
-- Ecclesiastes 7:10
Owen Meany
Maybe I can finally pickup an aeron chair and some nerf equipment.
Believe it or not, people have actually looked into this. Check out this page. <Insert requisite Microsoft bashing here>
As it turns out though, people seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity to eye contact. The camera positioning of the Beamer is such that it (perhaps by coincidence) takes advantage of this asymmetry. It would be better if the camera were even closer to the screen but they probably had some engineering problems.
Actually, current research suggests that there is an asymmetry in our sensitivy to eye contact. In fact, humans seem to be less sensative when someone is looking below their eyes (I don't think the asymmetry covers where men look, though). Some folks at Stanford looked into it - look here.
On the Beamer, it appears that the camera is located just above the screen. It might be a coincidence, but this is the best setup to take advantage of the asymmetry. Add to that the small screen and eye contact is probably not an issue at all.
Still don't know if people really want video phone calls though...
If you check the FAQ, they say they support H.324. You can check here for a description of the standard.
I'm pretty sure H.324 is not compatible with H.323 since it is designed specifically for use over POTS.
The corollary of course is to disguise non-important emails with inflammatory contents. Its been a while but I think this was an option in rmail.
Gotta get me one of them gecko skin body suits...
IANAL, but I read through the judgement too and I got the opinion that they were saying "look, your claim is idiotic, and you know it, now go away." However, it was kinda hidden in the legalese. Take for example this line:
Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents is Barred with Respect to "Blocks of Information" Because the Applicant Made Unmistakable Assertions to Avoid the Prior Art
What this sounds like to me is that BT was basing the whole case on obfuscation and picky interpretation. But the judgment basically says that the case was so lame that it doesn't need picky interpretation.
It seems like what happened is that BT had a pretty old patent for some very specific networking-addressing scheme that they wrote before the web and URLs really caught on. Then they realized that if they generalized their very specific thing they could cover pretty much any networking-addressing scheme like the web. Sounds like the court didn't buy it at all. Every single argument BT made was rejected. That sounds like a pretty clear message to me.
The free version says you may have to hold down control to open new links... is that true for IE6?
I just switched to Mozilla when I found out there was a google toolbar clone. There are still some issues with Mozilla but its also got a few advantages. Try it if you're sick of hearing the "95% of the web uses IE" stats.
Its true that the world right now is producing more food than people could eat if they had it in front of them. The amount of food produced is not the problem. But the problem is not that we're feeding it to our animals. The problem is that political estabilishments inhibit the distribution of food. Similarly, if there were changes in the demand for beef, there would be changes in the demand for grain which would affect the production of grain. Its a very complex economic, social, and political issue.
Besides, if you really want to point to a waste of food resources you should be looking at grain-based alcohol. Granted, that doesn't do much for animal rights.
Yeah, that seems really lame. Clearly a better business model for them would be to raise the price a little bit and provide the Chicken-Run thing for free. How hard is it to figure out that the people buying $199 computers aren't just throwing their money around?
On the other hand, I like this model for my own purposes because I'm perfectly happy to buy a box with a cheap/free OS that I can immediately replace.
In general, Lindows seems a little wishy-washy. Weren't they pushing their whole Wine modification? Whatever happened to that. I looked through their website and found almost no mention of it. There was one FAQ page that mentioned it but was pretty well hidden.
I think Lindows fell for the classic dot-com lie. The one that says - get a lot of exposure and the business model will take care of itself.
I've heard a lot of people recently saying that they mess with their user agent string. I'm wondering if all those estimates that "95% of the people on the web are using IE" are incorrect because of this.
I'm just curious, why do you want websites to think you're using IE? Is it so you can visit certain sites that only allow IE?
Cool! Now I can say goodbye to IE. Of course, I can't uninstall it though.
I started using Mozilla just recently (switched from IE6). I love being able to open pages in a new tab. I also really like the popup blocking feature.
Probably my favorite feature though is that my "Back" button works correctly again. Because I am blocking all the major ad sites in my hosts file, the back button in IE doesn't work correctly when the page has ads.
The big thing I miss from IE is the google toolbar. I didn't think I used it that much but I really did. (Yes I know I can search in the navigation bar or open the search panel in Mozilla). But I want the "search within site" button, I want the "page rank" bar, I want to look at incoming links to pages, and I want to look at similar pages. And the one I used probably 50 times a day is the "cached snapshot of page" from the IE right-click menu.
I also frequently use the middle mouse button for rate-based scrolling. Mozilla doesn't seem to have this either.
Also, does Flash work with Netscape 7? I know it didn't work with Netscape 6 or Mozilla. Not that this is something to get too upset about.
I think the point was to write an application in Windows to interface with PowerPoint then write some kind of protocol to communicate between the Zaurus and the Windows app.
You could get something very simple working very quickly - for example getting the text out of the slides. Here is a link that will get you started creating a COM Addin for PowerPoint (using Visual Studio). I would recommend creating the Windows side of your app using Visual Basic. Yes, Visual Basic isn't sexy but you can have a working PowerPoint add-in in about 10 minutes. To communicate with the Zaurus, you'll probably want to use a MS Winsock control. Again, this is a standard MS thing so you can just plug it in.
Once you have the MS side working as your PowerPoint server, you just create a client on your Zaurus to talk to the server. Java would probably work nicely for that. (Theoretically, you could also create the add-in to PowerPoint using Java but you'll waste a lot of time trying to figure out how to use COM in Java. And since you're using a MS product anyway, why not go whole hog, eh?)
Try VNC first and if you don't have enough bandwidth for some reason, go with this route.
For viewing all those really intersting and useful 3D models on CNN's website ;) Who doesn't need a 3D model of the caves in afghanistan
Yep, Task Gallery and Data Mountain.
:)
Look for them in Longhorn
I think you are looking for Alien Technology. This is a proposed alternative to bar codes. It has several advantages over traditional barcodes. The main ones are that it reduces theft and it reduces the number of employees needed to run a store. Also, I think the cost of the individual tags was about 5 cents but it would decrease as volume goes up.
Ever seen that Visa commercial where a guy in a trenchcoat walks out of the grocery store without paying. That's the kind of thing we're talking about.
I saw a presentation by someone from alien too. That makes me wonder if this whole story isn't a red herring so they will have an excuse to go to RFID. In the presentation I saw, they were anticipating mass resistance from consumers because of the privacy concerns. They also said they were secretly testing it in some unspecified town to see how people react. That was about a year ago and I haven't heard anything since.
If I were a retailer, there is no way I would upgrade to a longer bar code when I could upgrade to RFID. But as a consumer, I'm going to avoid it as much as possible. Anyway, I think you're right that we'll be seeing this any day now.
BTW, the big technological improvement over previous RFID systems (aside from the manufacturing) is that the tag uses a kind of 3D antenna so that it can be scanned at any angle. That's how they can eliminate manual scanning.
Ha! That prompted me to do a google search on the Rorschach Test and I got this link about what psychologists are looking for during a Rorschach. That is definitely science at its best :)
Reminds me of the joke from "What about Bob":
The psychatrist has a patient, he draws a circle and says "What do you think of when you see this?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a tree and says "What do you think of that one?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a car, a house "Sex, sex, sex" The doctor says "You know you're obsessed with sex" And the patient says "Well you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."
OK, I appreciate the difference between previous chord keyboards. But I don't think this difference is why chord keyboards have failed.
I think everyone will admit that chording is a faster way to do things - so why don't we all use stenography keyboards. The reason is because they require the user to learn something new. Any technology that requires the user to learn something new faces a huge barrier to entry.
There has also been a long-standing tension between Engelbart and much of the HCI community on building for the novice versus building for the expert. For the most part, building for the novice has won out, so any user interface that requires training is frowned upon in HCI (except in very specialized fields like graphic design, modeling, stenography, etc...)
Anyway, I hope something like this catches on - its definitely cooler than graffiti.
Joking aside, the problem I have with this article is that it is applying statistics where there is not enough information to apply statistics. If we were talking about pulling marbles out of a bag then, sure, plug away with statistics.
:)
But we're talking about coincidences in a chaotic environment. You simply can't apply statistics to these situations without thousands of simplifying assumptions.
Take the example in the story of a bird landing on the boy's head. Can you imagine trying to compute the probabiliy for this kind of an event. Compute the probability of him grabbing the bird given that the bird landed on his head given that he just said the word "mother" given that he was giving a speech about his mother dying.
Now I'm no writer but I can imagine millions of other ways this could have turned out. For example, the bird lands on his head and he freaks out and falls down some stairs to his death. Even if we ignore the part about his mother dying, what are the probabilities that a boy is giving a speech and a bird lands on his head. Certainly it could happen but how would you ever calculate a probability for it. Its madness.
That's just an example so don't get hung up with that particular example. If someone thinks they can calculate these kinds of probabilities, the department of homeland security would love to have you