You're absolutely correct. This was true for the Apple II, Commodore 64/128, TI 99/4A, Tandy CoCo, and all the old greats. In fact, the game libraries started quite small for many of the systems, and writing programs was the POINT of getting a computer.
I still have fondness/hatred for the memory of painstakingly typing in pages and pages of machine code from a magazine, using the Apple II's built in Monitor. Machine code, in hex, not assembly. And it didn't work! Argh!
Remember those adventure books where you had to write little BASIC programs to help the storyline along?
That's my main problem too. Seems like any time I want to install a driver for something, or any small program, I have to install a dozen libraries that aren't used for anything else. Related to this is the fact that when manufacturers release Linux binaries, they are usually extremely version-sensitive; often to the point where you have to downgrade your system in order for it to work.
For one, most Java implementations run entirely separate from the actual phone functions. You can't just replace the built-in OS.
What, exactly, could you do that makes it easier for a blind person to use? Every phone function is already accessed with a sequence of button presses. Type a phone number, hit talk. Memorize the order of people in your phone directory. On my phone, I can access nearly every function in one to three button presses, and seldom actually look at the screen. I can't see how your Java software would be able to do better.
Another vote for Sparkle, their power supplies have done well for me. Lots and lots of 3.3V amps, which is pretty crucial these days. They're quiet, stable, and are still among the least expensive.
Re:some interesting applications
on
Powered by Blood
·
· Score: 1
Man, I'm on fire today. Check out my comment history! I should go into standup comedy.
A handy little space saver is to bring a long ethernet cable and a very short ethernet cable. Then take one of those little end-to-end coupler and swap the wires inside to make it a crossover converter. That also works well for connecting two laptops, when the cables have a proprietary connector on the end instead of a dongle.
In a pinch, you can make a crossover converter without any tools. They snap apart easily, and you only have to bend the contact pins a bit to pull them out and swap them.
I just wanted to reply concerning the cost issue. If you find something you think will work, and can learn easily from it, it's worth the price. You'd be surprised what a good foundation of scientific principles can do for you, at work and at home.
It's not only the facts you know about things; those give you the ability to carry on a discussion with a specialist in any given field. It's also the process of discovery and fact-checking. Every time you work a problem, or follow the progression of a historical great discovery, you teach yourself how to apply your natural curiosity in a productive way. Invaluable.
They're getting the idea now. The market has established exactly what it wants: easy access to media. Not free access, because many people pay for high-bandwidth connections for this purpose.
Examine what your target market is doing, then change the business model to match. It makes perfect sense and they're finally catching on.
It reminds me of George Washington Carver's solution to a problem. The university students were walking on the grass instead of the paved walks, and wearing muddy trails. Carver simply noted where the students walked, and put sidewalks there. Problem solved.
They weren't talking about the relative performance between thermal compounds, they were talking about the actual performance of any common thermal compound.
Sure, Radio Shack's thermal compound might be as good as any out there, but that doesn't stop it from being a pretty good insulator. It's just a little better than the air filling those gaps.
Vendors pay very little for Windows. You do understand I'm talking about major vendors here, not little mom and pop stores. In my book, $10 equates to free. And the bare systems not only don't include Windows, they don't include the typical bundled software and the time to install the software.
And is bankruptcy the goal here? If you rag on vendors to pay up $200 plus court costs, that's bankruptcy 20 times faster. And in the end it does not help you or anyone else. Except you've satisfied your urge to stick it to Bill Gates, even though he's getting richer because more people have to buy the retail version....
2. You have a permanent, compact record of the images.
3. At Walgreens, it costs less to get your film developed and digitized onto CD. Prints cost more. $10.99 doesn't seem very competitive when you can get better resolution, higher resolution negatives, and 36 exposure for about half the price. Plus you get to keep your fancy film camera.
If you can afford a decent Canon digital camera, it's worth it as a replacement for film. A disposable low-quality camera is not worth it just to get crappy digital pictures. You can buy a cheap scanner or your own digital camera and get crappy-but-usable photos for less than $50.
Except that if everyone goes for a refund, then vendors will stop including the software. Then everyone gets to pay full retail price, putting more money in Microsoft's coffers.
You have to look at the end result. The end result is that vendors will be strongarmed out of being able to offer the operating system, because every time they give a refund they're losing 200 dollars. Thus the only purpose cannot be to get the money back you paid for Windows XP...because you did not pay for it. The end purpose is to stick it to Microsoft without regard to the damage caused to vendors. It's a jihad, completely opposite from the values the Linux community has been mouthing from day one: educate, offer choices, allow free expression without underlying schemes.
I can't imagine why they would have a problem with quadrupling their number of chart-topping acts. I guess it's because they would have no control over who tops the chart and when.
Makes it more difficult to sync up with all the ad men and product merchandisers. Also takes away their coveted power: you know, the heady "I run your life...Everything you have, you owe to me...I can bury you and make another pop hit artist next week" kind of power.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely correct. This was true for the Apple II, Commodore 64/128, TI 99/4A, Tandy CoCo, and all the old greats. In fact, the game libraries started quite small for many of the systems, and writing programs was the POINT of getting a computer.
I still have fondness/hatred for the memory of painstakingly typing in pages and pages of machine code from a magazine, using the Apple II's built in Monitor. Machine code, in hex, not assembly. And it didn't work! Argh!
Remember those adventure books where you had to write little BASIC programs to help the storyline along?
That's my main problem too. Seems like any time I want to install a driver for something, or any small program, I have to install a dozen libraries that aren't used for anything else. Related to this is the fact that when manufacturers release Linux binaries, they are usually extremely version-sensitive; often to the point where you have to downgrade your system in order for it to work.
Heh, guess we could teach all voters to type "./configure; make; make clean"
Except for my post, right?
Ummm, that's circumference you just calculated there.
For one, most Java implementations run entirely separate from the actual phone functions. You can't just replace the built-in OS.
What, exactly, could you do that makes it easier for a blind person to use? Every phone function is already accessed with a sequence of button presses. Type a phone number, hit talk. Memorize the order of people in your phone directory. On my phone, I can access nearly every function in one to three button presses, and seldom actually look at the screen. I can't see how your Java software would be able to do better.
Another vote for Sparkle, their power supplies have done well for me. Lots and lots of 3.3V amps, which is pretty crucial these days. They're quiet, stable, and are still among the least expensive.
Man, I'm on fire today. Check out my comment history! I should go into standup comedy.
Buy a T3, wire up the neighbors with Ethernet. It's every nerd's dream.
Does your sister know that you're offering her to random Slashdot nerds?
Duct tape and two Speed Sticks, my friend.
But you forget, a black shirt easily shows up dandruff.
The solution is a kind of mottled charcoal/grey shirt.
Yet another project following the tradition of allowing the developers' children to name it.
If you had 15 normal users, would there have been a problem to begin with?
Ok.
Christmas.
A handy little space saver is to bring a long ethernet cable and a very short ethernet cable. Then take one of those little end-to-end coupler and swap the wires inside to make it a crossover converter. That also works well for connecting two laptops, when the cables have a proprietary connector on the end instead of a dongle.
In a pinch, you can make a crossover converter without any tools. They snap apart easily, and you only have to bend the contact pins a bit to pull them out and swap them.
I just wanted to reply concerning the cost issue. If you find something you think will work, and can learn easily from it, it's worth the price. You'd be surprised what a good foundation of scientific principles can do for you, at work and at home.
It's not only the facts you know about things; those give you the ability to carry on a discussion with a specialist in any given field. It's also the process of discovery and fact-checking. Every time you work a problem, or follow the progression of a historical great discovery, you teach yourself how to apply your natural curiosity in a productive way. Invaluable.
They're getting the idea now. The market has established exactly what it wants: easy access to media. Not free access, because many people pay for high-bandwidth connections for this purpose.
Examine what your target market is doing, then change the business model to match. It makes perfect sense and they're finally catching on.
It reminds me of George Washington Carver's solution to a problem. The university students were walking on the grass instead of the paved walks, and wearing muddy trails. Carver simply noted where the students walked, and put sidewalks there. Problem solved.
They weren't talking about the relative performance between thermal compounds, they were talking about the actual performance of any common thermal compound.
Sure, Radio Shack's thermal compound might be as good as any out there, but that doesn't stop it from being a pretty good insulator. It's just a little better than the air filling those gaps.
Vendors pay very little for Windows. You do understand I'm talking about major vendors here, not little mom and pop stores. In my book, $10 equates to free. And the bare systems not only don't include Windows, they don't include the typical bundled software and the time to install the software.
And is bankruptcy the goal here? If you rag on vendors to pay up $200 plus court costs, that's bankruptcy 20 times faster. And in the end it does not help you or anyone else. Except you've satisfied your urge to stick it to Bill Gates, even though he's getting richer because more people have to buy the retail version....
You might as well use a film camera.
1. You get great resolution.
2. You have a permanent, compact record of the images.
3. At Walgreens, it costs less to get your film developed and digitized onto CD. Prints cost more. $10.99 doesn't seem very competitive when you can get better resolution, higher resolution negatives, and 36 exposure for about half the price. Plus you get to keep your fancy film camera.
If you can afford a decent Canon digital camera, it's worth it as a replacement for film. A disposable low-quality camera is not worth it just to get crappy digital pictures. You can buy a cheap scanner or your own digital camera and get crappy-but-usable photos for less than $50.
Except that if everyone goes for a refund, then vendors will stop including the software. Then everyone gets to pay full retail price, putting more money in Microsoft's coffers.
You have to look at the end result. The end result is that vendors will be strongarmed out of being able to offer the operating system, because every time they give a refund they're losing 200 dollars. Thus the only purpose cannot be to get the money back you paid for Windows XP...because you did not pay for it. The end purpose is to stick it to Microsoft without regard to the damage caused to vendors. It's a jihad, completely opposite from the values the Linux community has been mouthing from day one: educate, offer choices, allow free expression without underlying schemes.
I can't imagine why they would have a problem with quadrupling their number of chart-topping acts. I guess it's because they would have no control over who tops the chart and when.
Makes it more difficult to sync up with all the ad men and product merchandisers. Also takes away their coveted power: you know, the heady "I run your life...Everything you have, you owe to me...I can bury you and make another pop hit artist next week" kind of power.
You made my point. It's hypocritical to point fingers at Microsoft for using hardball tactics, and then do the same thing when you get the chance.