Oy, too much more of this, and we'll be setting ourselves up for a paradox.
You've got GNU/Emacs which is the operating system of its own, but runs on the GNU/Linux operating system as well. And it runs on the free proprietary OS. And Emacs is also in bazaar, even though it's based on the cathedral model. But its owner is very, very fond of bazaar (and bizarre, but that's neither there nor certainly here) development, despite not using it, while also using it.
Basically, we're looking at Emacs as a self-contradiction as things stand. Too much more of this and it's going to just go *poof*.
Well, the nice thing about mobile technologies is that they've got a relatively low infrastructure cost compared to wired technologies. The spiderweb of cable needed is significantly less dense, and it can piggy-back on existing data telcom lines.
Cellular tech also benefited in much of the world because they didn't have the initial 'heavy' cellular infrastructure to contend with - the legacy analog cellular crap. They also had fiber optics at their disposal, making the line cost significantly lower if anything did need to be laid.
And most countries, particularly much of the European ones, have the advantage of having higher population density and smaller area. Even in countries like Albania (which I doubt has much for any connectivity) getting the whole country covered with modern data cellular would be much easier.
Even still, it's possible to get a cellular connection of one sort or another pretty much anywhere in the US. I'm in one of the least sparsely covered parts of the US (from all carriers), which also happens to be one of the least populated. I can be tens of miles from the nearest person (forgive the hyperbole, but 1+ miles) or 30+ miles from the nearest town over 500 people and still get an SMS (or maybe a phone call) out. That's impressive.
It doesn't really matter what he learns to program, but to teach a young man how to do something, the best motivator is, i think, a competitive challenge. There are many ways that programming can be applied in such a fashion: botting games, the games which are, in fact, programming exercises, and things of that fashion.
The idea is to make it interesting, and interested people try to find solutions.
Then just make sure you break him of the habit by making him write some sort of ERP platform, so he can grow up normal and find employment.
Two years ago in Sturgis, I saw a number of bike builder projects. There were quite a few bikes with powerplants that got as little as 6 miles to the gallon. There's no point in that.
Also saw a guy (Allan Lee) who claimed his bike was running on gas and water (using the same engine) and getting about 12mpg. It was a damn sexy bike, but I'm unsure of whether it was doing what he claimed.
It's the same as people blaming inanimate objects (knives, video games, guns, whatever) for a criminal's behavior: they are trying to deny responsibility, and the actual root of the problem. By acknowledging the actual problem, they've got to take account of it.
Don't believe me? Ask your wife why she had to spend so much money for Christmas. "You didn't want your children to have a bad Christmas, did you?" or "You do better". No, the root of the problem has nothing to do with that, and it's just being avoided by focusing on extraneous and barely related 'facts'.
In this case (not my spend-crazy wife), the problem of Islamic terrorists attacking the United States for ideological and/or political reasons. It's evident the political reasons aren't going to change, and we can't change their ideology (short of killing them all). But it's evident that in order to attack the US from within an airplane, a jihadist had to actually be in or approaching US airspace to do so. Ergo, it happened at the end of the flight.
I know. I was going for intentional understatement.
But, I do think $25k/camera is a bit high. Maybe for the camera-turret system.:)
For optics, you could get what you need for under $450. That would be a webcam with a wide-angle lense, a gen1 nightvision monoscope (IR and the like would be useless in the desert), and a wide-angle lens enclosure for them both (to reduce any moving parts - doesn't matter if everyone looks fat, as long as you get more area).
Tying it all together might be a little more difficult, because of the NV limitations. Might be able to simply put it in front of another webcam.
The whole thing could sit atop a pole in a plexiglass box (with a white-painted top). The low temperatures aren't going to be an issue, but the highs might. You can place a battery ($50) in an enclosure at the base of each camera, and an inexpensive solar panel ($70) on it somewhere to recharge it constantly during the day.
An ambient light sensor (to switch between the NV and day webcam, and disable the NV one so it doesn't get burnt out) would also be necessary. Cheap.
So $250? No, probably not. But probably $1500 if labor is free.
Yeah, something's fishy. I don't believe the official story. If I recall correctly, foreigners flying to the US need to go through customs twice: once at the airport, once upon arrival.
What we need now is an additional camera every, oh, quarter mile. Figure $250 per camera installation (small ARM network board, camera, connectivity). That'd be a good start.
Then put autocanons on them designed to only shoot south.
Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.
Why is that a problem? I mean, the world is overpopulated, right? This is just cutting down on the excess.
And, unless we're not presuming the existence of a moral deity, the death of a human is fairly inconsequential. It's all about saving the planet (for future generations and the preservation of biodiversity/species), right?
Killing people outright just gets it done more quickly than the economic and environmental sanctions and laws we want to resort to.
Obviously the USA - whether they knew it or not - is 100% to blame. We should tax them and redistribute the wealth to those less fortunate to make up for it.
Plenty of games have religion in them - it's just not the "Sister Mary now feels comfortable with video games" type.
Examples:
* Deus Ex has a heavy religious theme throughout it; many of the inconsequential characters speak of religious/spiritual themes. * Fallout 3 has prevailant religious groups throughout * In Black and White, you play God. (How more religiously themed than that can you get?) * Baldur's Gate and the various derived D&D games have a lot of religion.
I seem to recall alignment, and a character's benevolence, playing into a lot of other games (and I'm not talking about all D&D type games here, either - just can't recall specifics). I know I felt a bit of an ethical tinge while playing KotoR and I did something that skewered my alignment "dark".
(I don't know; I really don't play all that many games to know which ones have what, nevermind which have religion.)
If we're talking about Protestantism/Catholicism/Islam/Christianity, those people can push off. I'm sorry, but life is more complex than church twice a week and sometimes on Saturday, and most importantly, that stuff isn't interesting. That stuff (typically) isn't interesting. People who think that "unless it's got baby Jesus in it, it's of the devil" aren't worth catering to. Many of these people think Zelda is demonic because of the monsters and critters (demons!), and that it's corrupting their youth because it doesn't focus on Allah (or Christ). Seriously?
Now, a couple "religious" game theme I'd love to see well and thoroughly implemented:
* Noah's Ark. You play Noah, in Sodom/Gomorrah. Make it dark, because those were (according to the Bible) dark cities, with dark people. Can you get Noah, the only pure-of-heart man still alive, to build the ark and gather the necessary animals before his pisses off God? Diverse RPG with some RTS elements as well as possible situation extrapolation leading to FPS type stuff. * Biblical battles in an RTS type game. Battle of Jericho with the "smite" hero attack, anyone? That'd be fucking awesome, and would be easy enough to do using existing/available engines, I'd think. Bonus points for being able to tie moral platitudes and spiritual absolutes into a player's/character's ability to fight well. (Though, that last bit might have too much repetition.) * Think Thief, but with Jews. Maybe they're fighting the Palestines and need spy work; maybe they're trying to escape from concentration camps and/or fight the Nazis. * hmm Inglorious Basterds, the game? Sounds fun! * Armageddon, the game. (On the other hand, making it balanced might be difficult and poorly conductive of multiplayer participation.) * Play a demon which goes about possessing people who are doing nefarious deeds - fucking, cheating, drinking, hypocrisy, whatever (pick your vice). Bonus points for the church-goers. Make it a FPS with RP characteristics: you level your demon up and eventually challenge the higher demons for status.
(And I really do think the first couple examples could be fun/well done.)
Failing that, what more do these people want? MOST games are shit; it's not just the religiously themed ones that suck.
(That said, I remember playing a Zelda 2-like game on the NES years ago that was, essentially, Noah's Ark. It wasn't that bad.)
Yet, a place suitable for hooking up a keyboard isn't half as useful as somewhere an attached keyboard would be: a plane, train, or bus; waiting in line somewhere for an hour, etc.
If I'm somewhere that I can hook up a USB keyboard, or use any sort of 'non-integral' peripheral, I've got a desk/table, and somewhere to prop the display. I'd be better off with a full laptop, in that situation.
Really, the OLPC program was a success, not only in transforming the lives of thousands of kids in third world countries, but by making computers more affordable for the first world as well with the advent of the netbook.
Thousands of lives?! My god, man! That's incredible return for the millions (billion?) spent! (Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the number, but I never actually heard/read about the success stories; all I heard was nonsense about how geeky they were.)
That said... the OLPC project was a massive success, but not for the reasons you mention. It was a success because the marketing was awesome; that was, mostly, what they produced. It was sufficient to create subequent generations.
Oh yeah, and the new $75/tablet figure: nonsense. Not because they won't reach it, but because it's easily reachable today at cost. The profit margin, on the other hand...
So you're saying that the Soviet-Afghan war was the US's fault now, and not Soviet expansionist aggression (like in Poland, Georgia, Ukraine...)? And that these Afghanis wouldn't have fought against helicopters without that evil corruptive capitalist dream in their heads?
No, sorry. Not buying it, because I know otherwise. Sharia/extremist Islamic doctrine has been in Afgahnistan for a long time. They fought against the Soviets for the same reason we've still got opponents there, today: they opposed the Soviets on principle. Not only did the Soviets now bow to Mecca*, but they denounced the very existence of a god.
* Barring an infidel to fight, they'll just fight amongst themselves. That's what dogmatics do.
That's OK. We've got to unjustly blame the capitalist giant for something, somewhere, when the problem isn't 40 years old and there isn't some overwhelming evidence that the results have actually been positive. Especially now that the global warming scheming has basically blown up in the schemers' faces.
(These haters seem to ignore the fact that Afgahnistan was systematically broken, as opposed to chaotically broken, before we got there in '03. No, it was not a poppy field paradise in the fall of '02.)
Sorry, I don't remember them actually meeting their price poitn the first time. I do remember them selling them for over twice what they'd initially said they'd cost, though.
Even "poor" households in third worlds have multiple computers. I doubt there are many US households that have fewer than 2-3 computers.
Now, a general purpose "personal computer", which hasn't had the electronic interface obscured, is another matter. Most of those computers are in other electronic devices - stereos, MP3 players, TVs, microwaves, and the like - and have had the bulk of their functionality removed.
The irony is, the hardware more-or-less existed when the OLPC was first conceptualized - and it could've been done inexpensively at that time, too. Five years ago, a $100 linux-based "netbook" would've been entirely feasable.
No, it wouldn't have had color or an x86 processor. And yes, it would've been a crappy monochrome LCD. But it'd have gotten great battery life, been able to do audio and the basic tasks outlined for the project, and (importantly) been able to be sold for under $100.
It was pretty obvious that Intel was making buku bucks off the advertising associated with the original platform. The OLPC guys got taken for a ride by associating with Intel on that one.
This time around, with enough volume there's no reason $100 shouldn't be achievable for a consumer price, and a lot less than that for production.
Here's the problem with print ads, and why they're failing:
* First, there's an intrinsic cycle cost to the advertising company (ie, the papers and magazines): they've got to print a paper. * Second, they've got no way to provide metrics to their users, short of their users communicating where they heard about the company/product/etc. in person. * Third, most print ads are of a limited distribution due to the niche interest of the media; a locally pertinent newspaper, a special interest magazine (Pet Times, Field and Stream, Sports Illustrated, etc.) * Even if the ad is successful, it will likely be days to weeks or months before you see a return on your print ads. People will clip and save them, and so on. * Forth, it's fucking expensive to use print advertising. Newspapers bill on 3-month ad cycles, and insist that you put your ad in for a 3-month cycle "to make sure it's getting saturation" or some such BS. That's hundreds+ of dollars for something which may or may not work, and can't possibly compete with giving it a try for a week and paying by the actual impression.
Apple has as good a chance to make this happen as anyone. Medical users would be running custom software for this tablet, so there's no need for it to be windows compatible. While displaying large 2D images like X-rays will require some CPU horsepower, it's still entirely possible for a low power CPU to do the job. And apple's superior user interfaces and integration with hardware mean that it will be cheaper and easier to train doctors and nurses to use this device.
Absolutely. Hospitals are, like no other place, a mis-match of glue-and-twine applications which serve a single purpose (and do it well-enough). If there's anywhere that a piece of incompatible technology will be bought up by the hundreds, it's a hospital.
The only thing I can see holding a device like this back back is that a lot of hospitals are shackled to what most industries would call "legacy" applications, but which in a hospital setting tend to be their primary use tools (like, say, Office is elsewhere). MEDITECH is a prime example of this, with many hospitals (especially in the rural parts of the US) using 10+ year old MT servers and clients.
I don't see Apple pursuing it, though. There's be too much "third party vendor" negotiations necessary (eg. getting a Meditech client written for the thing), and the costs would be high. But I could see a 3rd party company taking such a device and tailoring it for such a purpose, certainly.
In all fairness, I've yet to see a tablet which is actually appealing enough to buy, from my geek standpoint. The ARM based convertible (detatchable keyboard - can't find a link right now) is as close as I've seen so far, and that's just a little too under-powered/overpriced for having no HDMI or 3D acceleration.
Consider the price/benefit scenario: the first netbooks did really well because they were dirt cheap, even though they were still kind of between the full utility of either a laptop or a pocket portable. A tablet fits the same scenario, but moreso due to the lack of a keyboard (unless there is one, of course) - so it has to be awesome on price, or have features which nothing else has. A PixelQi screen would be a step in the right direction.
Eh, I don't know about that. I'm not a fan of Apple, but that doesn't seem like the kind of move they'd make.
Currently, there are a fair number of devices on the market which fit the description you offer, and even more in the sub-$400 range which are half decent (ie, pick two: replaceable batteries, low-power display, sane connectivity options, etc.)
What you describe is probably even "worse" than existing iTouch and similar devices from Apple, but in the same genre. For the most part, their new, big products aren't minor bigger/better changes, but fairly significant (in the past decade, at least). Sure, there are the granular updates (larger/faster/more memory/etc.), but for the 'product launches' it's usually a game changer in one way or the other.
Consider: the iPhone was a pretty 'new' thing. Yeah, there were media players, the iPod, and even Windows Mobile phones which did more-or-less the same thing. But the iPhone was, in essence, a completely new product: it was more a computer than anything which came before it, having easily accessible media and software, from anywhere (via the App Store). Their unibody laptops have been pretty 'revolutionary'.
I suspect that, if Apple does indeed release a tablet, it will fit one of the following templates fairly closely:
* It'll have a PixelQi screen and be a keyboardless tablet. It will essentially be a larger version of either the iTouch (incl. wireless). It might be $100-200 more than said devices. * It'll have an eInk or color eInk display and basically be competing with the Kindle, with similar hardware specifications but a bit more functionality - including the App Store. * It'll basically be an Apple netbook with a convertible PixelQi touchscreen. This is what I'm betting on. It may be a full Apple "computer" with OS X or it may be based on the iPhone OS. Conceivably, they could have an ARM based OS X, since they're essentially the same at the core. Good battery life if they go ARM. Maybe $900-$1000.
That last one is the one I'm guessing is closest to true. Of course, even if it's a piece of chalk, a string, and stylized marble board, Apple fanboys will think it's the coolest thing since sex.
My gut tells me you're right about this. Apple will likely learn a bit about the mistakes the others have made, demo all their prototypes, and then get a fair amount of free/cheap R&D out of their faux product announcement.
I'd like a 7"-10" tablet with a keyboard - basically an Eee or similar, with a touchscreen and able to convert into a tablet. But one of these things? Only thing I can see doing with it is sitting up in bed with it propped up watching a movie, or maybe have it in the car for GPS.
Other than that, I love the hardware in this thing, and the software isn't the horribly crippled iPhone OS. I'm not going to buy an apple product, simply on principle; they'd have to sell it at near-cost (so like 1/4th their 'sale' price) for me to be interested. Anyone else (including MS, ironically), and I'd jump at such a device.
Slashdot Mirror
Oy, too much more of this, and we'll be setting ourselves up for a paradox.
You've got GNU/Emacs which is the operating system of its own, but runs on the GNU/Linux operating system as well. And it runs on the free proprietary OS. And Emacs is also in bazaar, even though it's based on the cathedral model. But its owner is very, very fond of bazaar (and bizarre, but that's neither there nor certainly here) development, despite not using it, while also using it.
Basically, we're looking at Emacs as a self-contradiction as things stand. Too much more of this and it's going to just go *poof*.
Well, the nice thing about mobile technologies is that they've got a relatively low infrastructure cost compared to wired technologies. The spiderweb of cable needed is significantly less dense, and it can piggy-back on existing data telcom lines.
Cellular tech also benefited in much of the world because they didn't have the initial 'heavy' cellular infrastructure to contend with - the legacy analog cellular crap. They also had fiber optics at their disposal, making the line cost significantly lower if anything did need to be laid.
And most countries, particularly much of the European ones, have the advantage of having higher population density and smaller area. Even in countries like Albania (which I doubt has much for any connectivity) getting the whole country covered with modern data cellular would be much easier.
Even still, it's possible to get a cellular connection of one sort or another pretty much anywhere in the US. I'm in one of the least sparsely covered parts of the US (from all carriers), which also happens to be one of the least populated. I can be tens of miles from the nearest person (forgive the hyperbole, but 1+ miles) or 30+ miles from the nearest town over 500 people and still get an SMS (or maybe a phone call) out. That's impressive.
It doesn't really matter what he learns to program, but to teach a young man how to do something, the best motivator is, i think, a competitive challenge. There are many ways that programming can be applied in such a fashion: botting games, the games which are, in fact, programming exercises, and things of that fashion.
The idea is to make it interesting, and interested people try to find solutions.
Then just make sure you break him of the habit by making him write some sort of ERP platform, so he can grow up normal and find employment.
Two years ago in Sturgis, I saw a number of bike builder projects. There were quite a few bikes with powerplants that got as little as 6 miles to the gallon. There's no point in that.
Also saw a guy (Allan Lee) who claimed his bike was running on gas and water (using the same engine) and getting about 12mpg. It was a damn sexy bike, but I'm unsure of whether it was doing what he claimed.
It's the same as people blaming inanimate objects (knives, video games, guns, whatever) for a criminal's behavior: they are trying to deny responsibility, and the actual root of the problem. By acknowledging the actual problem, they've got to take account of it.
Don't believe me? Ask your wife why she had to spend so much money for Christmas. "You didn't want your children to have a bad Christmas, did you?" or "You do better". No, the root of the problem has nothing to do with that, and it's just being avoided by focusing on extraneous and barely related 'facts'.
In this case (not my spend-crazy wife), the problem of Islamic terrorists attacking the United States for ideological and/or political reasons. It's evident the political reasons aren't going to change, and we can't change their ideology (short of killing them all). But it's evident that in order to attack the US from within an airplane, a jihadist had to actually be in or approaching US airspace to do so. Ergo, it happened at the end of the flight.
No, not at all.
But they're still going to get taxed.
I know. I was going for intentional understatement.
But, I do think $25k/camera is a bit high. Maybe for the camera-turret system. :)
For optics, you could get what you need for under $450. That would be a webcam with a wide-angle lense, a gen1 nightvision monoscope (IR and the like would be useless in the desert), and a wide-angle lens enclosure for them both (to reduce any moving parts - doesn't matter if everyone looks fat, as long as you get more area).
Tying it all together might be a little more difficult, because of the NV limitations. Might be able to simply put it in front of another webcam.
The whole thing could sit atop a pole in a plexiglass box (with a white-painted top). The low temperatures aren't going to be an issue, but the highs might. You can place a battery ($50) in an enclosure at the base of each camera, and an inexpensive solar panel ($70) on it somewhere to recharge it constantly during the day.
An ambient light sensor (to switch between the NV and day webcam, and disable the NV one so it doesn't get burnt out) would also be necessary. Cheap.
So $250? No, probably not. But probably $1500 if labor is free.
Yeah, something's fishy. I don't believe the official story. If I recall correctly, foreigners flying to the US need to go through customs twice: once at the airport, once upon arrival.
What we need now is an additional camera every, oh, quarter mile. Figure $250 per camera installation (small ARM network board, camera, connectivity). That'd be a good start.
Then put autocanons on them designed to only shoot south.
Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.
Why is that a problem? I mean, the world is overpopulated, right? This is just cutting down on the excess.
And, unless we're not presuming the existence of a moral deity, the death of a human is fairly inconsequential. It's all about saving the planet (for future generations and the preservation of biodiversity/species), right?
Killing people outright just gets it done more quickly than the economic and environmental sanctions and laws we want to resort to.
Obviously the USA - whether they knew it or not - is 100% to blame. We should tax them and redistribute the wealth to those less fortunate to make up for it.
Plenty of games have religion in them - it's just not the "Sister Mary now feels comfortable with video games" type.
Examples:
* Deus Ex has a heavy religious theme throughout it; many of the inconsequential characters speak of religious/spiritual themes.
* Fallout 3 has prevailant religious groups throughout
* In Black and White, you play God. (How more religiously themed than that can you get?)
* Baldur's Gate and the various derived D&D games have a lot of religion.
I seem to recall alignment, and a character's benevolence, playing into a lot of other games (and I'm not talking about all D&D type games here, either - just can't recall specifics). I know I felt a bit of an ethical tinge while playing KotoR and I did something that skewered my alignment "dark".
(I don't know; I really don't play all that many games to know which ones have what, nevermind which have religion.)
If we're talking about Protestantism/Catholicism/Islam/Christianity, those people can push off. I'm sorry, but life is more complex than church twice a week and sometimes on Saturday, and most importantly, that stuff isn't interesting. That stuff (typically) isn't interesting. People who think that "unless it's got baby Jesus in it, it's of the devil" aren't worth catering to. Many of these people think Zelda is demonic because of the monsters and critters (demons!), and that it's corrupting their youth because it doesn't focus on Allah (or Christ). Seriously?
Now, a couple "religious" game theme I'd love to see well and thoroughly implemented:
* Noah's Ark. You play Noah, in Sodom/Gomorrah. Make it dark, because those were (according to the Bible) dark cities, with dark people. Can you get Noah, the only pure-of-heart man still alive, to build the ark and gather the necessary animals before his pisses off God? Diverse RPG with some RTS elements as well as possible situation extrapolation leading to FPS type stuff.
* Biblical battles in an RTS type game. Battle of Jericho with the "smite" hero attack, anyone? That'd be fucking awesome, and would be easy enough to do using existing/available engines, I'd think. Bonus points for being able to tie moral platitudes and spiritual absolutes into a player's/character's ability to fight well. (Though, that last bit might have too much repetition.)
* Think Thief, but with Jews. Maybe they're fighting the Palestines and need spy work; maybe they're trying to escape from concentration camps and/or fight the Nazis.
* hmm Inglorious Basterds, the game? Sounds fun!
* Armageddon, the game. (On the other hand, making it balanced might be difficult and poorly conductive of multiplayer participation.)
* Play a demon which goes about possessing people who are doing nefarious deeds - fucking, cheating, drinking, hypocrisy, whatever (pick your vice). Bonus points for the church-goers. Make it a FPS with RP characteristics: you level your demon up and eventually challenge the higher demons for status.
(And I really do think the first couple examples could be fun/well done.)
Failing that, what more do these people want? MOST games are shit; it's not just the religiously themed ones that suck.
(That said, I remember playing a Zelda 2-like game on the NES years ago that was, essentially, Noah's Ark. It wasn't that bad.)
Yet, a place suitable for hooking up a keyboard isn't half as useful as somewhere an attached keyboard would be: a plane, train, or bus; waiting in line somewhere for an hour, etc.
If I'm somewhere that I can hook up a USB keyboard, or use any sort of 'non-integral' peripheral, I've got a desk/table, and somewhere to prop the display. I'd be better off with a full laptop, in that situation.
Really, the OLPC program was a success, not only in transforming the lives of thousands of kids in third world countries, but by making computers more affordable for the first world as well with the advent of the netbook.
Thousands of lives?! My god, man! That's incredible return for the millions (billion?) spent! (Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the number, but I never actually heard/read about the success stories; all I heard was nonsense about how geeky they were.)
That said... the OLPC project was a massive success, but not for the reasons you mention. It was a success because the marketing was awesome; that was, mostly, what they produced. It was sufficient to create subequent generations.
Oh yeah, and the new $75/tablet figure: nonsense. Not because they won't reach it, but because it's easily reachable today at cost. The profit margin, on the other hand...
You're calling military types independent and rebellious? Not typically.
So you're saying that the Soviet-Afghan war was the US's fault now, and not Soviet expansionist aggression (like in Poland, Georgia, Ukraine...)? And that these Afghanis wouldn't have fought against helicopters without that evil corruptive capitalist dream in their heads?
No, sorry. Not buying it, because I know otherwise. Sharia/extremist Islamic doctrine has been in Afgahnistan for a long time. They fought against the Soviets for the same reason we've still got opponents there, today: they opposed the Soviets on principle. Not only did the Soviets now bow to Mecca*, but they denounced the very existence of a god.
* Barring an infidel to fight, they'll just fight amongst themselves. That's what dogmatics do.
That's OK. We've got to unjustly blame the capitalist giant for something, somewhere, when the problem isn't 40 years old and there isn't some overwhelming evidence that the results have actually been positive. Especially now that the global warming scheming has basically blown up in the schemers' faces.
(These haters seem to ignore the fact that Afgahnistan was systematically broken, as opposed to chaotically broken, before we got there in '03. No, it was not a poppy field paradise in the fall of '02.)
Sorry, I don't remember them actually meeting their price poitn the first time. I do remember them selling them for over twice what they'd initially said they'd cost, though.
Even "poor" households in third worlds have multiple computers. I doubt there are many US households that have fewer than 2-3 computers.
Now, a general purpose "personal computer", which hasn't had the electronic interface obscured, is another matter. Most of those computers are in other electronic devices - stereos, MP3 players, TVs, microwaves, and the like - and have had the bulk of their functionality removed.
The irony is, the hardware more-or-less existed when the OLPC was first conceptualized - and it could've been done inexpensively at that time, too. Five years ago, a $100 linux-based "netbook" would've been entirely feasable.
No, it wouldn't have had color or an x86 processor. And yes, it would've been a crappy monochrome LCD. But it'd have gotten great battery life, been able to do audio and the basic tasks outlined for the project, and (importantly) been able to be sold for under $100.
It was pretty obvious that Intel was making buku bucks off the advertising associated with the original platform. The OLPC guys got taken for a ride by associating with Intel on that one.
This time around, with enough volume there's no reason $100 shouldn't be achievable for a consumer price, and a lot less than that for production.
Here's the problem with print ads, and why they're failing:
* First, there's an intrinsic cycle cost to the advertising company (ie, the papers and magazines): they've got to print a paper.
* Second, they've got no way to provide metrics to their users, short of their users communicating where they heard about the company/product/etc. in person.
* Third, most print ads are of a limited distribution due to the niche interest of the media; a locally pertinent newspaper, a special interest magazine (Pet Times, Field and Stream, Sports Illustrated, etc.)
* Even if the ad is successful, it will likely be days to weeks or months before you see a return on your print ads. People will clip and save them, and so on.
* Forth, it's fucking expensive to use print advertising. Newspapers bill on 3-month ad cycles, and insist that you put your ad in for a 3-month cycle "to make sure it's getting saturation" or some such BS. That's hundreds+ of dollars for something which may or may not work, and can't possibly compete with giving it a try for a week and paying by the actual impression.
Apple has as good a chance to make this happen as anyone. Medical users would be running custom software for this tablet, so there's no need for it to be windows compatible. While displaying large 2D images like X-rays will require some CPU horsepower, it's still entirely possible for a low power CPU to do the job. And apple's superior user interfaces and integration with hardware mean that it will be cheaper and easier to train doctors and nurses to use this device.
Absolutely. Hospitals are, like no other place, a mis-match of glue-and-twine applications which serve a single purpose (and do it well-enough). If there's anywhere that a piece of incompatible technology will be bought up by the hundreds, it's a hospital.
The only thing I can see holding a device like this back back is that a lot of hospitals are shackled to what most industries would call "legacy" applications, but which in a hospital setting tend to be their primary use tools (like, say, Office is elsewhere). MEDITECH is a prime example of this, with many hospitals (especially in the rural parts of the US) using 10+ year old MT servers and clients.
I don't see Apple pursuing it, though. There's be too much "third party vendor" negotiations necessary (eg. getting a Meditech client written for the thing), and the costs would be high. But I could see a 3rd party company taking such a device and tailoring it for such a purpose, certainly.
In all fairness, I've yet to see a tablet which is actually appealing enough to buy, from my geek standpoint. The ARM based convertible (detatchable keyboard - can't find a link right now) is as close as I've seen so far, and that's just a little too under-powered/overpriced for having no HDMI or 3D acceleration.
Consider the price/benefit scenario: the first netbooks did really well because they were dirt cheap, even though they were still kind of between the full utility of either a laptop or a pocket portable. A tablet fits the same scenario, but moreso due to the lack of a keyboard (unless there is one, of course) - so it has to be awesome on price, or have features which nothing else has. A PixelQi screen would be a step in the right direction.
Eh, I don't know about that. I'm not a fan of Apple, but that doesn't seem like the kind of move they'd make.
Currently, there are a fair number of devices on the market which fit the description you offer, and even more in the sub-$400 range which are half decent (ie, pick two: replaceable batteries, low-power display, sane connectivity options, etc.)
What you describe is probably even "worse" than existing iTouch and similar devices from Apple, but in the same genre. For the most part, their new, big products aren't minor bigger/better changes, but fairly significant (in the past decade, at least). Sure, there are the granular updates (larger/faster/more memory/etc.), but for the 'product launches' it's usually a game changer in one way or the other.
Consider: the iPhone was a pretty 'new' thing. Yeah, there were media players, the iPod, and even Windows Mobile phones which did more-or-less the same thing. But the iPhone was, in essence, a completely new product: it was more a computer than anything which came before it, having easily accessible media and software, from anywhere (via the App Store). Their unibody laptops have been pretty 'revolutionary'.
I suspect that, if Apple does indeed release a tablet, it will fit one of the following templates fairly closely:
* It'll have a PixelQi screen and be a keyboardless tablet. It will essentially be a larger version of either the iTouch (incl. wireless). It might be $100-200 more than said devices.
* It'll have an eInk or color eInk display and basically be competing with the Kindle, with similar hardware specifications but a bit more functionality - including the App Store.
* It'll basically be an Apple netbook with a convertible PixelQi touchscreen. This is what I'm betting on. It may be a full Apple "computer" with OS X or it may be based on the iPhone OS. Conceivably, they could have an ARM based OS X, since they're essentially the same at the core. Good battery life if they go ARM. Maybe $900-$1000.
That last one is the one I'm guessing is closest to true. Of course, even if it's a piece of chalk, a string, and stylized marble board, Apple fanboys will think it's the coolest thing since sex.
My gut tells me you're right about this. Apple will likely learn a bit about the mistakes the others have made, demo all their prototypes, and then get a fair amount of free/cheap R&D out of their faux product announcement.
I'd like a 7"-10" tablet with a keyboard - basically an Eee or similar, with a touchscreen and able to convert into a tablet. But one of these things? Only thing I can see doing with it is sitting up in bed with it propped up watching a movie, or maybe have it in the car for GPS.
Other than that, I love the hardware in this thing, and the software isn't the horribly crippled iPhone OS. I'm not going to buy an apple product, simply on principle; they'd have to sell it at near-cost (so like 1/4th their 'sale' price) for me to be interested. Anyone else (including MS, ironically), and I'd jump at such a device.