I think Nancy is well-suited for devices that don't try to be video devices - like cell phones and PDAs.
In the relative scheme of things, non-video devices have low-resolution, low quality displays. And obviously the manufacturers of these devices are unwilling to spend significant CPU or board real estate for video purposes.
Devices that need to deliver high-quality video won't bother with Nancy - as anything that isn't a cell phone will have the power and capability to use a quality codec.
Nancy is just a stop-gap solution for delivering very low quality video to underpowered devices. As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.
Sorry, but there are just too many surveillance cameras to make this useful. Cameras are small, and are set up by many (perhaps most) private firms. If you want to travel and not be seen in NYC, knowing where a few video cameras are is not the trick.
The way to stay anonymous is to stop using your EZ-Pass, carry no proximity-type cards, use no credit/debit cards, travel by walking, bike, bus, or taxi.
Finally, even my apartment building has a video camera looking out the front and back access ways right now. Hum, and it doesn't seem to be on the list.
Software manufacturers have always been trying to protect their software from free market forces by implementing highly restrictive "license agreements". These agreements are an attempt to control their product in the marketplace - clearly in disrespect to the concept of a free economy.
Many software manufacturers want to eliminate any resale market in order to artificially raise demand for their product. It's like GM saying that you can't resell an old GM car, or a GM engine from your old rusted out Nova. What's to preventent GM from creating such restricive licensing arrangements? The Law, of course.
A free economy should not only be free from governmental restrictions, but also from industry restrictions. Industry is, surprisingly, the most significant regulatory body in the US government.
Further laws need to be passed to prevent needless restrictions by industry trade groups on free trade.
The real goal is to have the orbiter revolve around the planet every two hours. The rockets will slow the orbiter down to a 20 hour orbit - then, over a period of months, the orbiter will ease into a two hour orbit - thanks to aerobraking.
If all works well, that's what'll make this mission a success - the aerobraking technique means significantly lower fuel requirements, which makes for a lighter and thus less expensive mission.
If the labels' current effort is blocked by the EU, the labels will simply shift their plan so it becomes acceptable to the EU. This will likely include the creation of two or three other "independent" on-line distribution companies.
Three or four sights will be found to be acceptable to the EU.
Of course, these other companies won't really be all that independent - they'll either be so weak that they'll be out of business in a short period of time, or they will have such strong ties to the major companies that they'll be non-competetive.
Either way, the labels successfully killed Napster, and now they want to take over with a similarly illegal scheme. The EU might not like it, but it'll be hard to stop.
Of course we're all waiting for the day when even more is integrated - and it'll come fairly soon. It takes very very little more to add a voice recorder, an MP3 player, and user programmability (via something like Java). You could program it to track your kids and phone in their location every 15 minutes. Haha, the heck with privacy from the phone companies, how about the parents???
It will take a bit more for a fully functional computation device - that'll take some seious improvement in user interface technology for small devices. We're still a ways away from big displays on an ever shrinking device - I think it's time for the paradigm shift to kick in away from LCD displays - and cell phone technology is just the incentive. As long as those patenteers stay away from monopolizing good ideas!
Gimme cell phone cells or something COOLER.
on
GPS Drawings
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'd find it more interesting just to see where I have driven over the past twelve months.
Alternatively, I'd like to see what cell phone cells I drive through. That'd be neat, and perhaps more nerdly than the purpose-built paths of the site.
Anyone do that yet? I'm sure we'd all like to see that versus a distorted elephant picture made by some guy driving his car around a city.
The law is designed such that if companies want to stop a few people from taking advantage of their work, they have to stop everyone.
For example, if a collection of friends decide to create an Aqua-like theme and distribute it, what's that to prevent Microsoft from doing the same?
Clearly Apple is in competition with Microsoft, and it doesn't have any particular desire to permit Microsoft to make use of it's so-called user interface innovations.
Apple clearly built the Aqua theme, and spent a lot of time and money developing it into something that Apple hopes to be a brand-identifier. For a 3rd party to create a very similar branding, and then release it in such a way that Microsoft could use it flys in the face of why Apple developed the interface to begin with: To outpace Microsoft in interface design.
So although I feel for the individuals who have spent so much effort to clone the Aqua interface, it is also easy to appreciate Apple's stance on this issue.
My organization was hit hard by Nimda. Our poor Windows Administration staff ran around like crazy cleaning, patching, and upgrading hundreds of machines.
Is this a Microsoft problem? You bet.
Microsoft OSs do not have a complete, common set of system administration tools built in. This results in haphazard machine administration.
Microsoft and other companies sell useful administration tools, but these are high priced tools that only do a piece of the job. And since they aren't included with the OS, very few sysadmins have expertise with them.
So Microsoft, get on the ball. If you want to sell an OS, it should be ready for the enterprise.... including enterprise administration.
In the meantime, we're porting our apps from IIS to Apache. Yay!
I don't feel sad for every one of the dot-com unemployed. Many of them were dreamers, who never lived in the real world.
There are/were thousands of silly dot-coms, with stupid business plans and cobbled-together technology. Many of these shops were not part of any "talent pool".
I remember this one guy who I worked with. Marc was a nice guy. Marc thought of himself as a strong manager who was helping to fuel the dot-com revolution.
But the fact is that Marc didn't have a clue about management OR technology - he was just caught up in a ball of momentum. Marc was in a high-profile position in a very high profile organization. But that fact alone didn't make Marc a capable guy.
Marc left us for the dot coms of Atlanta. The last I heard, Marc was still looking for a job. Not because of the economy, but because he didn't have any skills.
Certainly I can understand why Compaq's Unix (aka Tru64, Ultrix, OSF1, DigitalUnix) would be KILLED. After all, Digital never let it grow to be a competitor with VMS. The market was never really developed.
HP/UX isn't the most popular Unix, but it is popular and mature and has it's following.
So there is no need to "rectify" HP/UX with Compaq's UNIX, other than to kill Compaq's efforts.
Killing HP/UX would just help Linux succeed, and HP has no financial reason to be interested in that.
After all, HP doesn't want to get out of the lucrative HP/UX hardware business, and supporting Linux will just convince people to go with lower-cost hardware.
Business Week should only publish stuff written by people with a clue.
One of my colleagues was recently let go and looked for a job, without much results. So he decided to head on back to school.
He was involved in "dot coms" for the past couple years after dropping out of college. To be honest he was hired because we NEEDED people - the rapid growth thing led to some crazy hiring decisions. We hired our share of idiots.
Anyone see this before?
So it's good he's going back to school, and to be honest, he really needs the education. Maybe he'll go into political science or something. He just wasn't cut out for the technology business.
So all this isn't about dot-com CEOs going back to school. It's about the uneducated going back to get an education.
The question isn't if customers will buy the new Microsoft-based Pocket PCs. Some will, many more will not.
The question is if the CELL PHONE manufacturers will be able to:
1. Readily integrate the OS into their devices.
2. License the OS at reasonable fees.
3. Find reasonable benefits for integrating the OS.
So far, Palm is winning this battle, along with Java. Microsoft is not, and this doesn't seem to be a step in that direction.
The current set of PDAs are just a waypoint to fully integrated devices. If Palm tries to follow the Microsoft path, Palm will fail. As will Microsoft.
Jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney learned long ago: sell your engines at a loss. The real money is in service.
At the time, IBM happened to be piloting System R (precursor to DB2) at Pratt & Whitney. And they learned there: Virtually give away the software, and make money on your services. And that's why IBM global services is such a powerful consulting force today. Global Services is the real profit arm of IBM.
But IBM ain't dumb. Of course, IBM global services prefers IBM products, but they'll support Solaris and Linux and VB apps too.
And that's the rub. Most Open Source-centric companies don't have deep pockets, but only support a narrow field of Open Source software.
The fact is guys, it's hard to support 50 new employees on a brand new, growing marketplace. It would be wiser to support existing commercial products while pushing your own [open source] agenda. Heck, that's the successful IBM GS model (sans the Open Source bit).
Grow up guys, get off your high horse and step into the real world. You can't start a company hoping that all your customers will knock on your door supporting your agenda. But you can can fight for your utopian dream by FIRST supporting your customers, and only SECONDLY by showing your customers why your ideals are best for THEM.
What a crazy article! Since the article doesn't cite a source, one can conclude that the research hasn't been published yet.
And since the research hasn't been published, one can assume that the study has not been peer reviewed - or even hasn't been accepted as worthy science.
So therefore, no one knows if this study is the next greatest find, or just a piece of crap designed to grab headlines.
This is all about some yahoos in Russia looking to get their hands on a pot of money - not money from "space tourists", but contracts to build such a space station.
Of course, $100 million can't build a space station. But lots of people would love to get their hands on a percentage of $100 million.
Therefore, the Russian advocates. But let's be real - except through gross mismanagement, this will never ever happen. It could only happen in the US, where corporate interests dictate government spending. Of course there is no need for such a project in the US - the government hands out thousands of $100 million contracts to "defense contractors" every year.
Alright, finally someone who knows what he's talking about:
Firewire is a bit more powerful than USB 2.0, given it's expandability and it's hostless capabilities.
Firewire has already become a huge advantage in my industry - the video editing industry. USB 2.0 cannot and will not replace Firewire in terms of performance and flexibility.
USB is a great, inexpensive interface for mice and other desktop devices connected to a computer. Firewire is great for predictable, high-speed data transfers between many classes of high speed devices.
USB 2.0 is an improvement in technology, but it does not improve customer relations. More incompatibile hardware and moving-target standards only results in more costs to the end users.
My local community college offers a course for building computers. It helps people understand computer hardware, AND it helps people obtain a useful, low-cost machine.
Components like the ones described by the poster are in demand - reasonably modern equipment, and with a few extra pieces (like drives), the builder can save hundreds of dollars and have a useful and potentially upgradable home PC for the kids.
Other options include the local school district or the local place of worship - whatever floats your boat. Or give it to the neighbor kid who is interested in such things.
The only thing I ask you not to do is to let it rot - by storing it in a closet until it's useless, or by putting it out with the garbage.
HP does NOT want Compaq
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Compaq management fucked up with the purchases of Tandem and Digital. Totally wasted billion dollar investments. Very sad.
HP made this investment for Digital and Tandem technology, and Compaq's sales and marketing. HP always had stronger datacenter service than Compaq-proper.
Compaq itself is only an interesting brand name and marketing channel. There's no way that HP keep the existing Compaq PC line going. The only advantage of HP buying Compaq is that HP now has one less competitor.
Changing Dynamics for Everyone
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Compaq snapped up Digital a couple years back. Digital had a ton of industry intellectual property... probably more than anyone other than IBM. Networking, CPU design & fabrication, Relational DB, clustering, DASD, Messaging, etc etc.
Compaq couldn't really do much with it, and sold much of it off to Oracle, Intel, Cisco, etc...
But not everything was sold to the high bidder. Some of it stayed within the corners of Compaq, waiting for a brighter day.
HP's culture certainly could benefit from much of that technology, and it's far more likely that HP can leverage some of technology to propell itself into IBM's datacenter space.
But the HP deal could weaken Linux a little bit, because HP isn't as much of a Linux advocate as IBM, and is an Intel/Microsoft partner & advocate (unlike Sun).
So, in the end, this deal could help Microsoft and hurt Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Nancy is well-suited for devices that don't try to be video devices - like cell phones and PDAs.
In the relative scheme of things, non-video devices have low-resolution, low quality displays. And obviously the manufacturers of these devices are unwilling to spend significant CPU or board real estate for video purposes.
Devices that need to deliver high-quality video won't bother with Nancy - as anything that isn't a cell phone will have the power and capability to use a quality codec.
Nancy is just a stop-gap solution for delivering very low quality video to underpowered devices. As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.
If the code is not released, AND it makes intimate use of GPL'd software, then it is in violation.
If the code is released under the GPL, -or- if it doesn't make intimate use of GPL'd software, then it is not in violation.
Sorry, but there are just too many surveillance cameras to make this useful. Cameras are small, and are set up by many (perhaps most) private firms. If you want to travel and not be seen in NYC, knowing where a few video cameras are is not the trick.
The way to stay anonymous is to stop using your EZ-Pass, carry no proximity-type cards, use no credit/debit cards, travel by walking, bike, bus, or taxi.
Finally, even my apartment building has a video camera looking out the front and back access ways right now. Hum, and it doesn't seem to be on the list.
Software manufacturers have always been trying to protect their software from free market forces by implementing highly restrictive "license agreements". These agreements are an attempt to control their product in the marketplace - clearly in disrespect to the concept of a free economy.
Many software manufacturers want to eliminate any resale market in order to artificially raise demand for their product. It's like GM saying that you can't resell an old GM car, or a GM engine from your old rusted out Nova. What's to preventent GM from creating such restricive licensing arrangements? The Law, of course.
A free economy should not only be free from governmental restrictions, but also from industry restrictions. Industry is, surprisingly, the most significant regulatory body in the US government.
Further laws need to be passed to prevent needless restrictions by industry trade groups on free trade.
The real goal is to have the orbiter revolve around the planet every two hours. The rockets will slow the orbiter down to a 20 hour orbit - then, over a period of months, the orbiter will ease into a two hour orbit - thanks to aerobraking.
If all works well, that's what'll make this mission a success - the aerobraking technique means significantly lower fuel requirements, which makes for a lighter and thus less expensive mission.
Let's hope everything works right this time!
Oh, you'll have to share with me.
I created HTML templates and then permitted users to modify the data sent to those templates via a web-based UI. That was sometime around 1995.
I'm sure that a zillion other people have done the same long before me.
Perhaps there's an aspect of the claim that I'm missing?
If the labels' current effort is blocked by the EU, the labels will simply shift their plan so it becomes acceptable to the EU. This will likely include the creation of two or three other "independent" on-line distribution companies.
Three or four sights will be found to be acceptable to the EU.
Of course, these other companies won't really be all that independent - they'll either be so weak that they'll be out of business in a short period of time, or they will have such strong ties to the major companies that they'll be non-competetive.
Either way, the labels successfully killed Napster, and now they want to take over with a similarly illegal scheme. The EU might not like it, but it'll be hard to stop.
Of course we're all waiting for the day when even more is integrated - and it'll come fairly soon. It takes very very little more to add a voice recorder, an MP3 player, and user programmability (via something like Java). You could program it to track your kids and phone in their location every 15 minutes. Haha, the heck with privacy from the phone companies, how about the parents???
It will take a bit more for a fully functional computation device - that'll take some seious improvement in user interface technology for small devices. We're still a ways away from big displays on an ever shrinking device - I think it's time for the paradigm shift to kick in away from LCD displays - and cell phone technology is just the incentive. As long as those patenteers stay away from monopolizing good ideas!
I'd find it more interesting just to see where I have driven over the past twelve months.
Alternatively, I'd like to see what cell phone cells I drive through. That'd be neat, and perhaps more nerdly than the purpose-built paths of the site.
Anyone do that yet? I'm sure we'd all like to see that versus a distorted elephant picture made by some guy driving his car around a city.
Hardly. The wired article, barely 200 words, doesn't even begin to explain why someone would want to map cyberspace.
This pretty old NY Times article (http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/go/recognition/nytimes0 999.htm) explains things much better. And I'm sure there are even better references out there.
The law is designed such that if companies want to stop a few people from taking advantage of their work, they have to stop everyone.
For example, if a collection of friends decide to create an Aqua-like theme and distribute it, what's that to prevent Microsoft from doing the same?
Clearly Apple is in competition with Microsoft, and it doesn't have any particular desire to permit Microsoft to make use of it's so-called user interface innovations.
Apple clearly built the Aqua theme, and spent a lot of time and money developing it into something that Apple hopes to be a brand-identifier. For a 3rd party to create a very similar branding, and then release it in such a way that Microsoft could use it flys in the face of why Apple developed the interface to begin with: To outpace Microsoft in interface design.
So although I feel for the individuals who have spent so much effort to clone the Aqua interface, it is also easy to appreciate Apple's stance on this issue.
My organization was hit hard by Nimda. Our poor Windows Administration staff ran around like crazy cleaning, patching, and upgrading hundreds of machines.
Is this a Microsoft problem? You bet.
Microsoft OSs do not have a complete, common set of system administration tools built in. This results in haphazard machine administration.
Microsoft and other companies sell useful administration tools, but these are high priced tools that only do a piece of the job. And since they aren't included with the OS, very few sysadmins have expertise with them.
So Microsoft, get on the ball. If you want to sell an OS, it should be ready for the enterprise.... including enterprise administration.
In the meantime, we're porting our apps from IIS to Apache. Yay!
Good job keeping things up.
I found Slashdot, BBC, and Boston.com to be the most available sites. ABCNews and CNN and Foxnews, etc, were all pretty much overwhelmed and unusable.
Fairly quickly, CNN went to a simple static page with 1 image, and that helped them out quite a bit.
I don't feel sad for every one of the dot-com unemployed. Many of them were dreamers, who never lived in the real world.
There are/were thousands of silly dot-coms, with stupid business plans and cobbled-together technology. Many of these shops were not part of any "talent pool".
I remember this one guy who I worked with. Marc was a nice guy. Marc thought of himself as a strong manager who was helping to fuel the dot-com revolution.
But the fact is that Marc didn't have a clue about management OR technology - he was just caught up in a ball of momentum. Marc was in a high-profile position in a very high profile organization. But that fact alone didn't make Marc a capable guy.
Marc left us for the dot coms of Atlanta. The last I heard, Marc was still looking for a job. Not because of the economy, but because he didn't have any skills.
Hahahaha. Why would HP abandon HP/UX?
Certainly I can understand why Compaq's Unix (aka Tru64, Ultrix, OSF1, DigitalUnix) would be KILLED. After all, Digital never let it grow to be a competitor with VMS. The market was never really developed.
HP/UX isn't the most popular Unix, but it is popular and mature and has it's following.
So there is no need to "rectify" HP/UX with Compaq's UNIX, other than to kill Compaq's efforts.
Killing HP/UX would just help Linux succeed, and HP has no financial reason to be interested in that.
After all, HP doesn't want to get out of the lucrative HP/UX hardware business, and supporting Linux will just convince people to go with lower-cost hardware.
Business Week should only publish stuff written by people with a clue.
One of my colleagues was recently let go and looked for a job, without much results. So he decided to head on back to school.
He was involved in "dot coms" for the past couple years after dropping out of college. To be honest he was hired because we NEEDED people - the rapid growth thing led to some crazy hiring decisions. We hired our share of idiots.
Anyone see this before?
So it's good he's going back to school, and to be honest, he really needs the education. Maybe he'll go into political science or something. He just wasn't cut out for the technology business.
So all this isn't about dot-com CEOs going back to school. It's about the uneducated going back to get an education.
The question isn't if customers will buy the new Microsoft-based Pocket PCs. Some will, many more will not.
The question is if the CELL PHONE manufacturers will be able to:
1. Readily integrate the OS into their devices.
2. License the OS at reasonable fees.
3. Find reasonable benefits for integrating the OS.
So far, Palm is winning this battle, along with Java. Microsoft is not, and this doesn't seem to be a step in that direction.
The current set of PDAs are just a waypoint to fully integrated devices. If Palm tries to follow the Microsoft path, Palm will fail. As will Microsoft.
Jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney learned long ago: sell your engines at a loss. The real money is in service.
At the time, IBM happened to be piloting System R (precursor to DB2) at Pratt & Whitney. And they learned there: Virtually give away the software, and make money on your services. And that's why IBM global services is such a powerful consulting force today. Global Services is the real profit arm of IBM.
But IBM ain't dumb. Of course, IBM global services prefers IBM products, but they'll support Solaris and Linux and VB apps too.
And that's the rub. Most Open Source-centric companies don't have deep pockets, but only support a narrow field of Open Source software.
The fact is guys, it's hard to support 50 new employees on a brand new, growing marketplace. It would be wiser to support existing commercial products while pushing your own [open source] agenda. Heck, that's the successful IBM GS model (sans the Open Source bit).
Grow up guys, get off your high horse and step into the real world. You can't start a company hoping that all your customers will knock on your door supporting your agenda. But you can can fight for your utopian dream by FIRST supporting your customers, and only SECONDLY by showing your customers why your ideals are best for THEM.
What a crazy article! Since the article doesn't cite a source, one can conclude that the research hasn't been published yet.
And since the research hasn't been published, one can assume that the study has not been peer reviewed - or even hasn't been accepted as worthy science.
So therefore, no one knows if this study is the next greatest find, or just a piece of crap designed to grab headlines.
I suspect the later.
...because...
1. IBM
2. Digital
3. Xerox
4. and even Apple
... are Hardware companies too.
Microsoft ain't a leader folks. Too bad they sell it that way.
This is all about some yahoos in Russia looking to get their hands on a pot of money - not money from "space tourists", but contracts to build such a space station.
Of course, $100 million can't build a space station. But lots of people would love to get their hands on a percentage of $100 million.
Therefore, the Russian advocates. But let's be real - except through gross mismanagement, this will never ever happen. It could only happen in the US, where corporate interests dictate government spending. Of course there is no need for such a project in the US - the government hands out thousands of $100 million contracts to "defense contractors" every year.
Alright, finally someone who knows what he's talking about:
Firewire is a bit more powerful than USB 2.0, given it's expandability and it's hostless capabilities.
Firewire has already become a huge advantage in my industry - the video editing industry. USB 2.0 cannot and will not replace Firewire in terms of performance and flexibility.
USB is a great, inexpensive interface for mice and other desktop devices connected to a computer. Firewire is great for predictable, high-speed data transfers between many classes of high speed devices.
USB 2.0 is an improvement in technology, but it does not improve customer relations. More incompatibile hardware and moving-target standards only results in more costs to the end users.
My local community college offers a course for building computers. It helps people understand computer hardware, AND it helps people obtain a useful, low-cost machine.
Components like the ones described by the poster are in demand - reasonably modern equipment, and with a few extra pieces (like drives), the builder can save hundreds of dollars and have a useful and potentially upgradable home PC for the kids.
Other options include the local school district or the local place of worship - whatever floats your boat. Or give it to the neighbor kid who is interested in such things.
The only thing I ask you not to do is to let it rot - by storing it in a closet until it's useless, or by putting it out with the garbage.
Compaq management fucked up with the purchases of Tandem and Digital. Totally wasted billion dollar investments. Very sad.
HP made this investment for Digital and Tandem technology, and Compaq's sales and marketing. HP always had stronger datacenter service than Compaq-proper.
Compaq itself is only an interesting brand name and marketing channel. There's no way that HP keep the existing Compaq PC line going. The only advantage of HP buying Compaq is that HP now has one less competitor.
Compaq snapped up Digital a couple years back. Digital had a ton of industry intellectual property... probably more than anyone other than IBM. Networking, CPU design & fabrication, Relational DB, clustering, DASD, Messaging, etc etc.
...
Compaq couldn't really do much with it, and sold much of it off to Oracle, Intel, Cisco, etc
But not everything was sold to the high bidder. Some of it stayed within the corners of Compaq, waiting for a brighter day.
HP's culture certainly could benefit from much of that technology, and it's far more likely that HP can leverage some of technology to propell itself into IBM's datacenter space.
But the HP deal could weaken Linux a little bit, because HP isn't as much of a Linux advocate as IBM, and is an Intel/Microsoft partner & advocate (unlike Sun).
So, in the end, this deal could help Microsoft and hurt Linux.