Why is everyone here such a pessemist? I'll admit, at first I thought this guy was off is rocker, but then I got to thinking about technological advances in the past 25 years and realized that it isn't all that far out of this world. Try to imagine a person's reaction if in 1975 you told him computers with more computing power then most (all?) of their super computers would be availible to home users in 2001. Or if you told them that gas/electric hybrid cars would be availible in 2001. Or that people would be able to own LCD screens that display thousands of colors? Or that computers would be used to create a large majority of popular music. Or that digital signals would be transmitted to many homes across america via cable. Or that home users would have cable connecting their computers to the internet (or just explain the internet itself). Or try telling them that you would be able to contact someone anywhere in the world via a "cell phone". We make incredible advances, and unless something terrible happens, we will keep making advances. I look forward to keeping an eye on technology and whether or not this guy is right.
yet human progress remains the same. Bigger, Faster, Easier and Fun. Unless we eliminate our desire for these things, we will follow a basic path of development, even if we shift our ideas
Because time travel (based on the theories of relativity) is already theoreticaly possible. I'm sure you're well aware of the concept that as you move faster, time moves slower. So you could approach the speed of light and thus manipulate time (time travel) which would occure before faster than light speed.
Not all that optimistic really. Look at how far technology has come since 1975 or 1950. Things chage quickly, and if they keep changing at the rate they change now, some of this robot tech stuff may be quite possible. Hell, just look at the AI built into some games, even that was beyond technology in 1975
When will people learn that often times the best products come when you say "It's my way or no way"
By limmiting it's hardware base, apple is able to keep very tight control of how the system works and how it runs. It also makes life a hell of a lot easier on tech guys.
Yes you could argue that this is the M$ way of doing things too, but it really isn't. M$ does demand things their way, but only in terms of the code, not the hardware.
X beta, X or X.1? Three very different builds of the same OS. If you only used X Beta, yes it was very unstable in sterms of support and uless you were willing to put up with back and forth switching it was a dumb idea for you to try and run it as a primary OS.
X was much more stable but had little support for periphrials. If you used this, you may not have liked the experience much unless you like mucking arround with the code for drivers and classic.
X.1 however is a whole different story. It runs very efficiently given it's age, is very stable, supports most major periphrials and has plenty of availible apps and extra drivers (go check out www.macosxapps.com)
Actualy when I was running X.1 on my iBook (300/192/6.0) and watching the processor and memory usage, the visual interface actualy took up very little resources except when doing something funky like the genie effect. And even in those situations, it was very good at determining whether to take the resouces from another program or just forgo the eyecandy all together.
If they restrict the hardware, then all that will do is give Apple a bad name. Why? Because hundreds of techno weenies will complain becasue OS X doesn't work with their random soundcard or video card or ethernet card or CD ROM drive etc etc etc
Personaly, I don't think we're going to get anywhere without some sort of inter-country cooperation and intercountry competition. The cooperation is nessesary to get the resources we would need to develop new technology. The competition is nessesary to motivate.
I forget who said it, but someone once said the key to being a good scientist (sorry I can't spell to save my life) is in two parts.
The first part is being able to analyze things with the mind of an adult. To be able to see the details and know that B always coincides with A, therefore if you have an A, you have a B somewhere.
The second part is to be able to think like a child. To be able to think beyond just what is infront of you and imagine what could be. This helps you to see the whole picture and remain focused on the end result.
You have the first one down, try working on the second. The world isn't a series of numbers and formulas. It's a complex wonderworld of amzing possibilities that just happen to be in human readable form.
I'm fairly sure they said the same thing about computers (i.e. untill the use of smaller technology becomes a reality, ware houses are the only practical means of storing a computer. Interestingly enough, most of the great inventions never happen because someone says "ok what's the next step in this process" it's because someone has a radical dream regarding a new way of doing something, and then develops a plan to go about making it. Sort of like working in reverse.
In this case, we have a concept called the solar sail. We have a basic idea of what would need to be done to make it practical. Now we work on making it practical.
We currently have a wonderful game rating system in place. It's called parents. From day 1, their entire responsibility is to raise up their kid with a well instilled sense of morals. Laws that make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors just take more responsibility off the parent.
Many parents say they can't monitor their kids all the time. I say that's bull. When I was a wee lad, arround the age of 7 or 8, my parents always knew who I was with and where I was at all times. Even if they weren't there, they knew exactly what the plan were ahead of time. And you know what I did? I played pretend games of violence
with friends. War, Ghost Busters, Cowboys & Indians, all of these games I played. I watched Bugs Bunny (one of the most violent shows arround), I played with nerf guns and with dart guns. But my parents always taught me reality from fantasy. I knew not to point guns at anything but inanimate objects. I knew that killing was bad. I knew the difference between pretend and real life.
When I started hitting early teens, I was indeed given more freedom, but still nowhere near what some parents give their teens. For example, the video game system was set up in the living room. The computer was set up in the same place. My parents watched what I played. I was allowed to buy games for myself, but they always watched me play it, and if they didn't like it, they got rid of it. Simple. When I brought home Mortal Kombat, I thought it was the best thing I had ever played. My parents thought it was too violent for my age, and the next day, back to the store it went. However, I was allowed to go to summer camp and take the riflery course
Now as I prep myslef for college, I see the results of the restrictions my parents put on me. I was restircted so my parents could ensure I had appropriate friends. They limmited my access to certain games, until, they felt I was capable of understanding it. Currently I have almost no restrictions on me. I am allowed to choose what movies I see, based on my views. I am given my own computer and the ability to buy the games I see fit. And my parents trust that I can make proper decisions. When I voice my interest in takig up paintball, my parents sat down with me and discussed it at length. We looked into the rules and the structuring of the game, and they also looked at my ability to handle the game. IN the end, they determined I was able to play the game.
My parents understood that my view on life start very early. These kids who are 16 and 17, who play violent video gmaes and then go shoot up their schools have other things wrong with them. If at age 16 you don't have a firm grasp of reality, and can't distinguish moral rights and wrongs or fact from fantasy, than there is somethign fundamentaly wrong with you that goes deeper than just a video game.
Censorship belongs in the hands of the parents, not int he hands of the government
Espesialy using the ESRB ratings as a determining factor. I bought a program a few years back that placed attached Star Wars movie clips and sounds to certain system events. The violence rating was somewhere in the mid to upper range. THe reason: Damage to Realistic Objects
So who owns the copywrite on the Bible? When I pay $20 for a nicely bound bible at the store, does the costs go the the estate of God? Are the Apostles compensated for their stories? One of the most widely printed books in all the world is the bible. And despite the fact that it is availible in just about every form possible (including online) it is still also a very big selling book. The psalms were writen many years ago, they were later put to music and the music sold. THe peopl ewho publish the colections of that music are profiting. Not the people who wrote the music, and not the people who wrote the psalms. Therefore, is buying a song book full of bible songs stealing since the original owners of the intellectual property are not getting compensated?
If the rightful owner does not want to share it then he should not
a) perform it (someone might record it)
b) write it down (it could get stolen and copied)
c) record it for broadcast (it might get copied from the radio)
infact, if he doesn't want to share it, he should expose it at all.
The whole purpose of creating (whether it be music, writing, or software or otherwise) is to share it. If you can make money while you share it, more power to you, but at some point, you lose control over the sharing, it's inevitable.
You're only hope is that someone will find the free item and either
a) pay for an original copy (which many people do because there's just something about owning an original)
b) hope they like you enough to buy your next item.
No one will go broke because someone has to buy the original medium. And more people will buy the original first rather than look for it on Napster (otherwise, record wouldn't make it to the top 10 because they would all have 1 buyer.
Actualy, the problem lies in the fact that we've confused access with profit. For example, you turn on the radio, and you can record a copy of any song that you hear. The costs of running the radio station (including the music licences are handled by commercials)
Music sharing works much the same way, you can copy any song which you find on the sharing database, and the costs are paid for by ads (see Morpheus).
However, music sharing, as with radio, crosses the line when the consumer (you and I) begin to profit from the music (i.e. we make and sell copies of the music) untill that point, everything we have done with the musci is perfectly legal because it was all accessing.
If anything, the RIAA should be hitting up these sharing sites for a percentage (the same that they charge radio stations) of their advertising profits.
Slashdot Mirror
we already have a 100 gig HD, what makes you think by the end of the year we won't have 200?
Could you imagine and orgasm virus? The next "I Love You" virus could contain AIDS
Why is everyone here such a pessemist? I'll admit, at first I thought this guy was off is rocker, but then I got to thinking about technological advances in the past 25 years and realized that it isn't all that far out of this world. Try to imagine a person's reaction if in 1975 you told him computers with more computing power then most (all?) of their super computers would be availible to home users in 2001. Or if you told them that gas/electric hybrid cars would be availible in 2001. Or that people would be able to own LCD screens that display thousands of colors? Or that computers would be used to create a large majority of popular music. Or that digital signals would be transmitted to many homes across america via cable. Or that home users would have cable connecting their computers to the internet (or just explain the internet itself). Or try telling them that you would be able to contact someone anywhere in the world via a "cell phone". We make incredible advances, and unless something terrible happens, we will keep making advances. I look forward to keeping an eye on technology and whether or not this guy is right.
yet human progress remains the same. Bigger, Faster, Easier and Fun. Unless we eliminate our desire for these things, we will follow a basic path of development, even if we shift our ideas
Actualy, first and foremost, human nature is to survive
Because time travel (based on the theories of relativity) is already theoreticaly possible. I'm sure you're well aware of the concept that as you move faster, time moves slower. So you could approach the speed of light and thus manipulate time (time travel) which would occure before faster than light speed.
Not all that optimistic really. Look at how far technology has come since 1975 or 1950. Things chage quickly, and if they keep changing at the rate they change now, some of this robot tech stuff may be quite possible. Hell, just look at the AI built into some games, even that was beyond technology in 1975
Except a lot of his predictions really aren't all that open ended. A lot of them get fairly specific.
yes they already restrict their hardware and look at one of the top reasons most people give for not buying a mac "Not enough hardware"
No people will stick to their wintel PCs
Actualy, if I remember right, the project was canned for two reasons:
a) it didn't appear that it would help apple's sale considereably
b) It was actualy too expensive to impliment and support
When will people learn that often times the best products come when you say "It's my way or no way"
By limmiting it's hardware base, apple is able to keep very tight control of how the system works and how it runs. It also makes life a hell of a lot easier on tech guys.
Yes you could argue that this is the M$ way of doing things too, but it really isn't. M$ does demand things their way, but only in terms of the code, not the hardware.
X beta, X or X.1? Three very different builds of the same OS. If you only used X Beta, yes it was very unstable in sterms of support and uless you were willing to put up with back and forth switching it was a dumb idea for you to try and run it as a primary OS.
X was much more stable but had little support for periphrials. If you used this, you may not have liked the experience much unless you like mucking arround with the code for drivers and classic.
X.1 however is a whole different story. It runs very efficiently given it's age, is very stable, supports most major periphrials and has plenty of availible apps and extra drivers (go check out www.macosxapps.com)
X is just Darwin with a nice GUI.
Right, cause Coa-coa, carbon and quartz are all standard components of Darwin on x86
Actualy when I was running X.1 on my iBook (300/192/6.0) and watching the processor and memory usage, the visual interface actualy took up very little resources except when doing something funky like the genie effect. And even in those situations, it was very good at determining whether to take the resouces from another program or just forgo the eyecandy all together.
If they restrict the hardware, then all that will do is give Apple a bad name. Why? Because hundreds of techno weenies will complain becasue OS X doesn't work with their random soundcard or video card or ethernet card or CD ROM drive etc etc etc
Common, that's not flamebait. Maybe a bit dumb and not quite funny, but certainly not flamebait
Personaly, I don't think we're going to get anywhere without some sort of inter-country cooperation and intercountry competition. The cooperation is nessesary to get the resources we would need to develop new technology. The competition is nessesary to motivate.
I forget who said it, but someone once said the key to being a good scientist (sorry I can't spell to save my life) is in two parts.
The first part is being able to analyze things with the mind of an adult. To be able to see the details and know that B always coincides with A, therefore if you have an A, you have a B somewhere.
The second part is to be able to think like a child. To be able to think beyond just what is infront of you and imagine what could be. This helps you to see the whole picture and remain focused on the end result.
You have the first one down, try working on the second. The world isn't a series of numbers and formulas. It's a complex wonderworld of amzing possibilities that just happen to be in human readable form.
I'm fairly sure they said the same thing about computers (i.e. untill the use of smaller technology becomes a reality, ware houses are the only practical means of storing a computer. Interestingly enough, most of the great inventions never happen because someone says "ok what's the next step in this process" it's because someone has a radical dream regarding a new way of doing something, and then develops a plan to go about making it. Sort of like working in reverse.
In this case, we have a concept called the solar sail. We have a basic idea of what would need to be done to make it practical. Now we work on making it practical.
We currently have a wonderful game rating system in place. It's called parents. From day 1, their entire responsibility is to raise up their kid with a well instilled sense of morals. Laws that make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors just take more responsibility off the parent.
Many parents say they can't monitor their kids all the time. I say that's bull. When I was a wee lad, arround the age of 7 or 8, my parents always knew who I was with and where I was at all times. Even if they weren't there, they knew exactly what the plan were ahead of time. And you know what I did? I played pretend games of violence
with friends. War, Ghost Busters, Cowboys & Indians, all of these games I played. I watched Bugs Bunny (one of the most violent shows arround), I played with nerf guns and with dart guns. But my parents always taught me reality from fantasy. I knew not to point guns at anything but inanimate objects. I knew that killing was bad. I knew the difference between pretend and real life.
When I started hitting early teens, I was indeed given more freedom, but still nowhere near what some parents give their teens. For example, the video game system was set up in the living room. The computer was set up in the same place. My parents watched what I played. I was allowed to buy games for myself, but they always watched me play it, and if they didn't like it, they got rid of it. Simple. When I brought home Mortal Kombat, I thought it was the best thing I had ever played. My parents thought it was too violent for my age, and the next day, back to the store it went. However, I was allowed to go to summer camp and take the riflery course
Now as I prep myslef for college, I see the results of the restrictions my parents put on me. I was restircted so my parents could ensure I had appropriate friends. They limmited my access to certain games, until, they felt I was capable of understanding it. Currently I have almost no restrictions on me. I am allowed to choose what movies I see, based on my views. I am given my own computer and the ability to buy the games I see fit. And my parents trust that I can make proper decisions. When I voice my interest in takig up paintball, my parents sat down with me and discussed it at length. We looked into the rules and the structuring of the game, and they also looked at my ability to handle the game. IN the end, they determined I was able to play the game.
My parents understood that my view on life start very early. These kids who are 16 and 17, who play violent video gmaes and then go shoot up their schools have other things wrong with them. If at age 16 you don't have a firm grasp of reality, and can't distinguish moral rights and wrongs or fact from fantasy, than there is somethign fundamentaly wrong with you that goes deeper than just a video game.
Censorship belongs in the hands of the parents, not int he hands of the government
Espesialy using the ESRB ratings as a determining factor. I bought a program a few years back that placed attached Star Wars movie clips and sounds to certain system events. The violence rating was somewhere in the mid to upper range. THe reason: Damage to Realistic Objects
So who owns the copywrite on the Bible? When I pay $20 for a nicely bound bible at the store, does the costs go the the estate of God? Are the Apostles compensated for their stories? One of the most widely printed books in all the world is the bible. And despite the fact that it is availible in just about every form possible (including online) it is still also a very big selling book. The psalms were writen many years ago, they were later put to music and the music sold. THe peopl ewho publish the colections of that music are profiting. Not the people who wrote the music, and not the people who wrote the psalms. Therefore, is buying a song book full of bible songs stealing since the original owners of the intellectual property are not getting compensated?
If the rightful owner does not want to share it then he should not
a) perform it (someone might record it)
b) write it down (it could get stolen and copied)
c) record it for broadcast (it might get copied from the radio)
infact, if he doesn't want to share it, he should expose it at all.
The whole purpose of creating (whether it be music, writing, or software or otherwise) is to share it. If you can make money while you share it, more power to you, but at some point, you lose control over the sharing, it's inevitable.
You're only hope is that someone will find the free item and either
a) pay for an original copy (which many people do because there's just something about owning an original)
b) hope they like you enough to buy your next item.
No one will go broke because someone has to buy the original medium. And more people will buy the original first rather than look for it on Napster (otherwise, record wouldn't make it to the top 10 because they would all have 1 buyer.
Actualy, the problem lies in the fact that we've confused access with profit. For example, you turn on the radio, and you can record a copy of any song that you hear. The costs of running the radio station (including the music licences are handled by commercials)
Music sharing works much the same way, you can copy any song which you find on the sharing database, and the costs are paid for by ads (see Morpheus).
However, music sharing, as with radio, crosses the line when the consumer (you and I) begin to profit from the music (i.e. we make and sell copies of the music) untill that point, everything we have done with the musci is perfectly legal because it was all accessing.
If anything, the RIAA should be hitting up these sharing sites for a percentage (the same that they charge radio stations) of their advertising profits.