At first I thought, interesting, a tablet with a phone built in. NOT. It has no telephony capabilities itself, requiring a bluetooth enabled phone to provide connectivity. Makes me wonder exactly what the market is since it seems to compete directly with PocketPC/Palm. Other than price and the nice screen, I really didn't see anything all that compelling that would drive a significant number of people to choose this solution since it would be squeezed at the highend by PPC and the low end by their own phones (and others of course).
Is it just me or is the fact that they waited until four paragraphs from the end of the entire article to actually state what the change proposal was? They have this massive amount of build up and talk to discord, but I read most of the article wondering, "err, I wish I knew what the proposal was so I can put this whole thing in context".
*You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.
Duh, just wait until after your done with it;)
Actually, now that I think about it, I could see an interesting market for personal rfid scanners. You can sell it to women to take on first (or 2nd or 3rd) dates and it can scan for the product id's for condoms. That way they can catch a bit of a glimpse of what types of intentions (or hopes, or in the case of most/.'ers, dreams) their date has:)
One of the first fruits of the Google/NASA pairing will be the gShuttle. The existing space shuttle will be modified to store 10x the amount the previous shuttle could (though no details yet from NASA as to why they need that much space and if they'd actually use it). The new shuttle would also bring up paid advertisments based on various criteria, the formula for which Google has not made public. Another gShuttle innovation would be a radically simplier control and navigation system. The pilots will not simply type in their commands to the shuttle (e.g. "rearThrusters:fire burntime:10"). One particularly interesting feature is the "I feel lucky" button on the navigation console, no specifics as to the exact function of this button was put forth by the Google spokesdrone.
I get the weight saving, but surely a standard screen is just as cheap, if not cheaper and would have the benefit of colour
One of the biggest deals is the extremely low power draw. You are only using juice if you change what's being displayed, not to hold what is currently there. So if you're application is one that displays somewhat static information which changes somewhat infrequently over time, the power savings can be huge (electronic billboards, airport displays, etc). They are also very readable even without powerful backlights, so they are even more miserly with the juice.
Surely should be post-PPC, unless they've ditched Intel already.
Jobs announced that Apple will be switching over to the PortalPlayer processors. He also stated that due to the overwhelming success of the iPod line, that all Macintosh's will ship with only a clickwheel for input (eliminating the now outdated keyboard and mouse). He was widely expected to announce a totally revamped OSX (to be called OSXI) that, in a radical shift in user interfaces) eliminated the gui altogether and replaces it with a much simply hierarchical series of menus. However, pending litigation with Creative will mean that the future of software user interfaces will be put on hold, pending the lawsuits outcome.
His opinion, while interesting, is incredibly naive. It's great that there was recently a posting about the spread between "good" programmers and "average" programmers. Much of what the author talks about represents an incredibly small portion of the overall developer community. While there may be some people that would flourish being given freedom to work from home on a project that they found interesting, the fact is, those types of projects are fairly uncommon (the real challenge is to take the "mundane" project and make it interesting) as is the person who would actually benefit from this. Let's face it, the majority of developers would not see a similar leap in productivity. They might enjoy their lives more, but it certainly would not relate to higher productivity.
The author mentions that M$ can't motivate its IE programming staff to come out with a "better" browser than FireFox. Well, discounting things like dealing with the codebase you have inherited, lets face it, M$ operates by putting their A Team resources where they perceive they are needed the most. Right now, they kick butt in the browser wars (even against "better" competition), so there isn't a perceived need to "have to come out with something significantly better". OTOH, the FireFox team does nothing but produce a browser (kinda), so of course they HAVE to be better. Would a new browser that was only "just as good", or even "not quite as good" been acceptable for the FF team, obviously not. So to assume that the quality of software coming from both sides has more to do with amateur developers vs non motivated professional developers is simply not looking at the bigger picture.
Let me state this, I've either worked with or have seen (usually via resume) a large number of hardware guys who have moved over to software. I know of exactly 0 who have done the reverse. FWIW I've been in the industry for over 20 years. Of course, "software" and "hardware" are very vague terms. I wouldn't for instance recommend focusing too much on web only development, as these folks are plentiful and generally (I said generally) not paid as well. And for hardware, are you talking about being a typical corp IT guy, slinging pc's together and plugging in network cables, or are you talking about someone who designs IC's. Both hardware, but vastly different.
Bottom line is that there will always be demand for both, right now (and for the near term), software seems to be the safer/"easier" bet. Most important, is to pick your choice in either domain wisely.
This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking,
hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find. It
proceeds under the first economic principles of the patent system to argue that there
can be no justification for patenting software when the public has no knowledge of
the patents' scope or technical disclosure. It concludes by observing that patent law
already provides a mechanism for disclosing patents to the public, the marking requirement,
and proposes putting teeth into it so that holders of software patents would
be required to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents.
I think that the problem many have with software patents is not that they are hard to find, but rather that it is so easy to patent almost anything, regardless of how trivial/obvious and many times without regard to prior art. Marking may help you from getting tripped up by an existing patent, but if the basic premise is that the majority of software patents are evil, then marking just makes the evil easier to find.
Here is the press release striaght from Samsung along with a picture of the beast. Wonder how much power this thing soaks up and how much heat it puts out?
Then Jeff partnered with the Cannon [ copier ] company with the CAT-PC.
Yes, I have one, it's an interesting beast. It wasn't so much that the disk was a giant piece of text, what you did was save the entire state of the computers memory onto the floppy. If you wanted to start a new document, then you would simply plop in a blank floppy. The whole thing was written in Forth and there is an "easter egg" that allows you to get direct access to the Forth interpreter.
However the most "novel" thing about it was how you navigated. It didn't use a pointing device (i.e. mouse) but used two dedicated keys on the keyboards labeled "JUMP" (you'll have to forgive me, it's been a while since I've had it out and played with it, so this might not be perfectly correct). You would use the jump keys to "hop" around the document/screen.
There was also an add-in card made for the Apple II that was basically a Cat on a card. If anyone knows of one of these, please let me know. There was also one laptop made, but Jef himself has it and he's not giving it up (or at least wasn't when I asked him about it a few years ago).
As agreed, he delivered the install script, and we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended,
You made payment BEFORE you ran formal acceptance testing of the application (yes, including the installer). That was your fatal error. Once you've ponied up the bucks, you've lost all leverage short of a lawsuit.
If I were you, I'd email then and request a specific timeline/deadline for completing the work. Make sure your email contains language stating that what they delivered does not meet their obligations. Assuming they respond similarly (i.e. "we're working on it"), then at least you have some level of proof that they acknowledge that they are potentially breaching the contract you have. Then take their asses to court.
Good luck. Next time remember
- formal requirements
- explicit deliverables (see requirements above)
- formal acceptance test to ensure that the software actually meets requirements
"Extended Exposure To Linux Proven to be Dangerous to Your Health!"
Not only is Linux less secure than Windows for computer bourne infectants, but recent studies have shown that users who have extended exposure to the operating system come down with other human based diseases at a rate greater than 100% greater than Windows users.
In related news, SCO guarantees safety from infection by end users who pay their modest licensing fee.
I find it highly amusing that old technology is used to support new technology which is then used to supply the features of old technologies. Case 1, telephones. POTS lines are used to carry modem traffic which is now used to carry voip (i.e. telephone) traffic. Cable lines are used to carry ip traffic which is now being utilized to receive tv. Gotta luv it.
Having the wifi would be interesting for travellers. Imagine going to the airport and joining in in established games with other travellers. If the game had an online version (in addition to multiplayer), you could continue the game with other people you met. Also, if the airlines start allowing wifi usage on the plane, then you could play against others in flight. Heck, the airline could sponser tournies and what not. This could be an interesting opportunity for developers to come up with some interesting games/apps geared specifically for those who have between 1/2 hour to 4 hours to "play".
"What we've decided is that for the investment that's required and the returns we would get and the timeline to get to those returns, that it doesn't make sense for us to pursue this particular technology," Intel spokesman Bill Calder said.
Intel initially planned to deliver chips to TV makers in the second half of this year. But in August, the first signs of trouble surfaced, as Intel indefinitely postponed the project, saying the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product.
So basically they're saying that they thought they could bust into market because their so awesome at making anything made of silicon. They got their first samples done and they sucked compared to their competitors who haven't exactly been sitting around. Then they realized that hey, it's gonna take a lot of money to have something competitive and just how big is the market for $2000 tv's anyway, esp considering how technologically fickle it is at the moment (almost any technology can assert itself during any given generation). Then they figured, why bother.
There is no way you can compare many of the tech folks working on various projects (e.g. Linux) as "amateurs". Most of the developers on these projects are indeed professionals, the simple act of working on a non-corp sponsered app doesn't make one an amateur. That's like saying the the NBA "dream team" members are amateur's by virtue of them playing on a non-professional team at the time.
Did they remember to put the power button on the front of the machine this time?
What's wrong with the power button on the front? I know it's not exactly the same as the physical switch on the back, but I've literally have never used that switch beyond the first time I ever turned my PS2 on (I got it a week after the original launch).
Doesn't the saying go "you can't get something from nothing"? How do they get "DVD quality" from old film? How could it look any better than the original VHS quality?
I'm sure there are 50 people replying right now, but....
It's better because the original film is significantly higher res than VHS (one would think this goes without saying, but anyway). Even if it were a simple direct from master copy to DVD, you'd still get a significantly better end result than could be achieved by VHS. But typically they'll do other things in the process like cleaning up the print (digitally) while they're at it. Also note that the 35mm film is higher res still than DVD (which is actually quite low res) so there is still a lot of headroom there for even better quality formats in the future (e.g. DVD-HD).
What Intel and Vaporware? Never! They have to compete with the likes of IBM:
In other news: IBM is preparing a dual-core version of its 90nm PowerPC 970FX processor - aka the G5
Hardly an apples/apples comparison (no pun intended). IBM has been shipping dual core Power4 processors now for a couple of years. Wouldn't be that much of a stretch to believe that they would have a dual core G5 out in that timeframe. After all, if you read the article and applied the three scenarios, you'd see that the dual core G5 actually meets there first one (it really was a dual core).
Slashdot Mirror
You guys should easily have enough blooper material to fill a show by now, let's have it.
So, barring, that, my question would be, what are your top 5 "oops" incidents that never made it on to the screen?
At first I thought, interesting, a tablet with a phone built in. NOT. It has no telephony capabilities itself, requiring a bluetooth enabled phone to provide connectivity. Makes me wonder exactly what the market is since it seems to compete directly with PocketPC/Palm. Other than price and the nice screen, I really didn't see anything all that compelling that would drive a significant number of people to choose this solution since it would be squeezed at the highend by PPC and the low end by their own phones (and others of course).
Is it just me or is the fact that they waited until four paragraphs from the end of the entire article to actually state what the change proposal was? They have this massive amount of build up and talk to discord, but I read most of the article wondering, "err, I wish I knew what the proposal was so I can put this whole thing in context".
*You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.
;)
/.'ers, dreams) their date has :)
Duh, just wait until after your done with it
Actually, now that I think about it, I could see an interesting market for personal rfid scanners. You can sell it to women to take on first (or 2nd or 3rd) dates and it can scan for the product id's for condoms. That way they can catch a bit of a glimpse of what types of intentions (or hopes, or in the case of most
One of the first fruits of the Google/NASA pairing will be the gShuttle. The existing space shuttle will be modified to store 10x the amount the previous shuttle could (though no details yet from NASA as to why they need that much space and if they'd actually use it). The new shuttle would also bring up paid advertisments based on various criteria, the formula for which Google has not made public. Another gShuttle innovation would be a radically simplier control and navigation system. The pilots will not simply type in their commands to the shuttle (e.g. "rearThrusters:fire burntime:10"). One particularly interesting feature is the "I feel lucky" button on the navigation console, no specifics as to the exact function of this button was put forth by the Google spokesdrone.
I get the weight saving, but surely a standard screen is just as cheap, if not cheaper and would have the benefit of colour
One of the biggest deals is the extremely low power draw. You are only using juice if you change what's being displayed, not to hold what is currently there. So if you're application is one that displays somewhat static information which changes somewhat infrequently over time, the power savings can be huge (electronic billboards, airport displays, etc). They are also very readable even without powerful backlights, so they are even more miserly with the juice.
Surely should be post-PPC, unless they've ditched Intel already.
Jobs announced that Apple will be switching over to the PortalPlayer processors. He also stated that due to the overwhelming success of the iPod line, that all Macintosh's will ship with only a clickwheel for input (eliminating the now outdated keyboard and mouse). He was widely expected to announce a totally revamped OSX (to be called OSXI) that, in a radical shift in user interfaces) eliminated the gui altogether and replaces it with a much simply hierarchical series of menus. However, pending litigation with Creative will mean that the future of software user interfaces will be put on hold, pending the lawsuits outcome.
His opinion, while interesting, is incredibly naive. It's great that there was recently a posting about the spread between "good" programmers and "average" programmers. Much of what the author talks about represents an incredibly small portion of the overall developer community. While there may be some people that would flourish being given freedom to work from home on a project that they found interesting, the fact is, those types of projects are fairly uncommon (the real challenge is to take the "mundane" project and make it interesting) as is the person who would actually benefit from this. Let's face it, the majority of developers would not see a similar leap in productivity. They might enjoy their lives more, but it certainly would not relate to higher productivity.
The author mentions that M$ can't motivate its IE programming staff to come out with a "better" browser than FireFox. Well, discounting things like dealing with the codebase you have inherited, lets face it, M$ operates by putting their A Team resources where they perceive they are needed the most. Right now, they kick butt in the browser wars (even against "better" competition), so there isn't a perceived need to "have to come out with something significantly better". OTOH, the FireFox team does nothing but produce a browser (kinda), so of course they HAVE to be better. Would a new browser that was only "just as good", or even "not quite as good" been acceptable for the FF team, obviously not. So to assume that the quality of software coming from both sides has more to do with amateur developers vs non motivated professional developers is simply not looking at the bigger picture.
Of course we're better lovers.. it's because (among other things):
/. nerds expect their women (or men) to be, uh, open source (fill in your own version of the gpl here).
-
Let me state this, I've either worked with or have seen (usually via resume) a large number of hardware guys who have moved over to software. I know of exactly 0 who have done the reverse. FWIW I've been in the industry for over 20 years. Of course, "software" and "hardware" are very vague terms. I wouldn't for instance recommend focusing too much on web only development, as these folks are plentiful and generally (I said generally) not paid as well. And for hardware, are you talking about being a typical corp IT guy, slinging pc's together and plugging in network cables, or are you talking about someone who designs IC's. Both hardware, but vastly different.
Bottom line is that there will always be demand for both, right now (and for the near term), software seems to be the safer/"easier" bet. Most important, is to pick your choice in either domain wisely.
From the article :
This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking, hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find. It proceeds under the first economic principles of the patent system to argue that there can be no justification for patenting software when the public has no knowledge of the patents' scope or technical disclosure. It concludes by observing that patent law already provides a mechanism for disclosing patents to the public, the marking requirement, and proposes putting teeth into it so that holders of software patents would be required to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents.
I think that the problem many have with software patents is not that they are hard to find, but rather that it is so easy to patent almost anything, regardless of how trivial/obvious and many times without regard to prior art. Marking may help you from getting tripped up by an existing patent, but if the basic premise is that the majority of software patents are evil, then marking just makes the evil easier to find.
Here is the press release striaght from Samsung along with a picture of the beast. Wonder how much power this thing soaks up and how much heat it puts out?
Then Jeff partnered with the Cannon [ copier ] company with the CAT-PC.
Yes, I have one, it's an interesting beast. It wasn't so much that the disk was a giant piece of text, what you did was save the entire state of the computers memory onto the floppy. If you wanted to start a new document, then you would simply plop in a blank floppy. The whole thing was written in Forth and there is an "easter egg" that allows you to get direct access to the Forth interpreter.
However the most "novel" thing about it was how you navigated. It didn't use a pointing device (i.e. mouse) but used two dedicated keys on the keyboards labeled "JUMP" (you'll have to forgive me, it's been a while since I've had it out and played with it, so this might not be perfectly correct). You would use the jump keys to "hop" around the document/screen.
There was also an add-in card made for the Apple II that was basically a Cat on a card. If anyone knows of one of these, please let me know. There was also one laptop made, but Jef himself has it and he's not giving it up (or at least wasn't when I asked him about it a few years ago).
As agreed, he delivered the install script, and we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended,
You made payment BEFORE you ran formal acceptance testing of the application (yes, including the installer). That was your fatal error. Once you've ponied up the bucks, you've lost all leverage short of a lawsuit.
If I were you, I'd email then and request a specific timeline/deadline for completing the work. Make sure your email contains language stating that what they delivered does not meet their obligations. Assuming they respond similarly (i.e. "we're working on it"), then at least you have some level of proof that they acknowledge that they are potentially breaching the contract you have. Then take their asses to court.
Good luck. Next time remember
- formal requirements
- explicit deliverables (see requirements above)
- formal acceptance test to ensure that the software actually meets requirements
Hi kids, this is Bob the Turion, and his sidekick, Larry the Celeron.
"Extended Exposure To Linux Proven to be Dangerous to Your Health!"
Not only is Linux less secure than Windows for computer bourne infectants, but recent studies have shown that users who have extended exposure to the operating system come down with other human based diseases at a rate greater than 100% greater than Windows users.
In related news, SCO guarantees safety from infection by end users who pay their modest licensing fee.
I find it highly amusing that old technology is used to support new technology which is then used to supply the features of old technologies. Case 1, telephones. POTS lines are used to carry modem traffic which is now used to carry voip (i.e. telephone) traffic. Cable lines are used to carry ip traffic which is now being utilized to receive tv. Gotta luv it.
Having the wifi would be interesting for travellers. Imagine going to the airport and joining in in established games with other travellers. If the game had an online version (in addition to multiplayer), you could continue the game with other people you met. Also, if the airlines start allowing wifi usage on the plane, then you could play against others in flight. Heck, the airline could sponser tournies and what not. This could be an interesting opportunity for developers to come up with some interesting games/apps geared specifically for those who have between 1/2 hour to 4 hours to "play".
"What we've decided is that for the investment that's required and the returns we would get and the timeline to get to those returns, that it doesn't make sense for us to pursue this particular technology," Intel spokesman Bill Calder said.
Intel initially planned to deliver chips to TV makers in the second half of this year. But in August, the first signs of trouble surfaced, as Intel indefinitely postponed the project, saying the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product.
So basically they're saying that they thought they could bust into market because their so awesome at making anything made of silicon. They got their first samples done and they sucked compared to their competitors who haven't exactly been sitting around. Then they realized that hey, it's gonna take a lot of money to have something competitive and just how big is the market for $2000 tv's anyway, esp considering how technologically fickle it is at the moment (almost any technology can assert itself during any given generation). Then they figured, why bother.
Troll-be-goneo cks-be-gone
FP-be-gone
In-Soviet-Russia-be-gone
Microsoft-anything-sucks-open-source-everything-r
Cowboy-Neal-be-gone
There is no way you can compare many of the tech folks working on various projects (e.g. Linux) as "amateurs". Most of the developers on these projects are indeed professionals, the simple act of working on a non-corp sponsered app doesn't make one an amateur. That's like saying the the NBA "dream team" members are amateur's by virtue of them playing on a non-professional team at the time.
This could give the Diaper Genie a run for it's money!
Did they remember to put the power button on the front of the machine this time?
What's wrong with the power button on the front? I know it's not exactly the same as the physical switch on the back, but I've literally have never used that switch beyond the first time I ever turned my PS2 on (I got it a week after the original launch).
Doesn't the saying go "you can't get something from nothing"? How do they get "DVD quality" from old film? How could it look any better than the original VHS quality?
....
I'm sure there are 50 people replying right now, but
It's better because the original film is significantly higher res than VHS (one would think this goes without saying, but anyway). Even if it were a simple direct from master copy to DVD, you'd still get a significantly better end result than could be achieved by VHS. But typically they'll do other things in the process like cleaning up the print (digitally) while they're at it. Also note that the 35mm film is higher res still than DVD (which is actually quite low res) so there is still a lot of headroom there for even better quality formats in the future (e.g. DVD-HD).
What Intel and Vaporware? Never! They have to compete with the likes of IBM: In other news: IBM is preparing a dual-core version of its 90nm PowerPC 970FX processor - aka the G5
Hardly an apples/apples comparison (no pun intended). IBM has been shipping dual core Power4 processors now for a couple of years. Wouldn't be that much of a stretch to believe that they would have a dual core G5 out in that timeframe. After all, if you read the article and applied the three scenarios, you'd see that the dual core G5 actually meets there first one (it really was a dual core).